An Intelligent (I hope) question about ZDDP
- Thread starter barryh
- Start date
- Status
I can't answer some of the very specific questions posed above but I can say the following...
In my mind, ZDDP does and doesn't deplete. I'll explain...
If you compare a used oil to the same oil when fresh, you will (adjusting for evaporation & dilution) find the same amount of zinc, phosphorus & ZDDP-related sulphur in both oils. So the basic constitutents of ZDDP 'stick around' for the life of the oil.
However one of the first things I learnt about ZDDP was that it was thermally unstable. In my youthful ignorance, I once asked the lab to run a (250C) Noack test on a mix of base oil & 30% ZDDP. I don't know why everyone gave me so much grief! It was only hydrogen sulphide that stunk out the building and if everyone could smell it, no-one was in danger of actually dying!!
So ZDDP does gradually decompose (usually starting around 160C as I recall) and importantly under pressure (the like of which you will find at contacting cam tips). However it's this decomposition that allows ZDDP to work because it's the decomposition products (likely to be reactive thioacid derivatives) which react with metal to form those nice tribofilms. And here's the thing. In the studies I've seen, ZDDP as 'pure' ZDDP doesn't stick around for long (you can see this on IR) but wear protection is maintained because of all the reactive bits floating around in the oil. Yes, the tribofilms will progressively be sheared away and in this sense, the ZDDP will be 'depleted' but I suspect much of this is still reactive.
In my mind, ZDDP does and doesn't deplete. I'll explain...
If you compare a used oil to the same oil when fresh, you will (adjusting for evaporation & dilution) find the same amount of zinc, phosphorus & ZDDP-related sulphur in both oils. So the basic constitutents of ZDDP 'stick around' for the life of the oil.
However one of the first things I learnt about ZDDP was that it was thermally unstable. In my youthful ignorance, I once asked the lab to run a (250C) Noack test on a mix of base oil & 30% ZDDP. I don't know why everyone gave me so much grief! It was only hydrogen sulphide that stunk out the building and if everyone could smell it, no-one was in danger of actually dying!!
So ZDDP does gradually decompose (usually starting around 160C as I recall) and importantly under pressure (the like of which you will find at contacting cam tips). However it's this decomposition that allows ZDDP to work because it's the decomposition products (likely to be reactive thioacid derivatives) which react with metal to form those nice tribofilms. And here's the thing. In the studies I've seen, ZDDP as 'pure' ZDDP doesn't stick around for long (you can see this on IR) but wear protection is maintained because of all the reactive bits floating around in the oil. Yes, the tribofilms will progressively be sheared away and in this sense, the ZDDP will be 'depleted' but I suspect much of this is still reactive.
Last edited:
SoJ just gave a very succinct explanation of the way ZDP works, although I would have given him a hard time about that test as well - gross. We are still discovering new things every year about ways to understand tribofilm development and there were some great papers presented on ZDP films this year at STLE. We've known for years that the decomposition mechanisms that SoJ describes work, and are still discovering ways to visualize and measure the actual thickness and and rate of tribofilm growth.
I'll try to answer some of your questions:
Does the ZDDP get depleted during the OCI and at what rate ?
Yes it does. Although newer species of ZDP are specifically designed to volatize at a lower rate. Low volatility ZDP's have been around for years, but they were less reactive when it came to forming tribofilms. The newer developments in ZDP which enabled GF-5 limits did both - less evaporation and more protection. GF-4 was really when we started measuring phosphorus retention where both a min and max was set. This was further increased at GF-5 where the Sequence IIIG test started measuring phosphorus volatility and requires that 79% of the phos remains after running the test. Understanding the rate at which ZDP's deplete (in forming tribofilms and evaporative/dilution loss) is at the heart of tribofilm research today because further reducing them in the right way can provide environmental benefits not only to catalysts but also to the contribution of other pollutants, improved oxidation control and reduced nitration which can enable longer oil drain intervals.
So what I am saying is that the research which enables lower levels of ZDP isn't about just protecting the CAT, although it is part of it, but the industry is actively looking at ways to enable better, more efficient technology which reduces the environmental impact of the internal combustion engine.
Does more ZDDP create a thicker or stronger or more continuous protective layer on the metal surface ?
Not necessarily. In the conditions that create ZDP films the important thing is that it is present and can decompose to create the necessary tribofilms. There are other ways to create strong tribofilms but metal phosphides and metal sulfides are the most common. Combining those with other synergistic components are what creates the stronger and more continuous protective layers. There are many ways to get there and the patents held by the major addco's all address the formation of ZDP films and other tribolayers is what makes them so valuable.
Is there a maximum size / strength / thickness of protective layer created by ZDDP beyond which more can not be added ? And what level of ZDDP create this saturation point. ?
There does appear to be limits to the thickness of the protective layers formed by ZDP. (Lubrizol has a video that shows their layer being about 130 nm thick). But this layer is constantly in flux where it is layed down, removed and replaced by continuous reactions at the surface interfaces. This requires a continual supply of decomposing ZDP to build and rebuild this layer. API testing has determined that a minimum of 600ppm of Phos showing in your oil is what is needed to form these layers.
Are the above formulations from Castrol and Valvoline saying that the Phos and Zinc limit needs to be increased ? I hear from local Castrol techs that the Oz Castrol EDGE 5W30 A3/B4 has about 1000 ppm Zinc.
I can't speak for either of these manufacturers, but what I can say is that for certain OEM claims there may be a cost advantage to using older species and formulas (such as one designed for SL) to avoid repeating expensive engine tests. A lot of the wear requirements are very similar between SL and SN so it's possible to have an oil only claiming SL due to phos restrictions as you mentioned with the Castrol product. I don't think they are saying that the limit needs to be increased.
Most people outside the BITOG community are lucky if they change their oil regularly, let alone choosing an oil based on it's phos content. The major marketers know this and so put out the oils that sell high volumes and have the better profit margins - I hate to say it, but at the end of the day all the cool chemistry in the world can't speak louder than the business interests of those companies.
I'll try to answer some of your questions:
Does the ZDDP get depleted during the OCI and at what rate ?
Yes it does. Although newer species of ZDP are specifically designed to volatize at a lower rate. Low volatility ZDP's have been around for years, but they were less reactive when it came to forming tribofilms. The newer developments in ZDP which enabled GF-5 limits did both - less evaporation and more protection. GF-4 was really when we started measuring phosphorus retention where both a min and max was set. This was further increased at GF-5 where the Sequence IIIG test started measuring phosphorus volatility and requires that 79% of the phos remains after running the test. Understanding the rate at which ZDP's deplete (in forming tribofilms and evaporative/dilution loss) is at the heart of tribofilm research today because further reducing them in the right way can provide environmental benefits not only to catalysts but also to the contribution of other pollutants, improved oxidation control and reduced nitration which can enable longer oil drain intervals.
So what I am saying is that the research which enables lower levels of ZDP isn't about just protecting the CAT, although it is part of it, but the industry is actively looking at ways to enable better, more efficient technology which reduces the environmental impact of the internal combustion engine.
Does more ZDDP create a thicker or stronger or more continuous protective layer on the metal surface ?
Not necessarily. In the conditions that create ZDP films the important thing is that it is present and can decompose to create the necessary tribofilms. There are other ways to create strong tribofilms but metal phosphides and metal sulfides are the most common. Combining those with other synergistic components are what creates the stronger and more continuous protective layers. There are many ways to get there and the patents held by the major addco's all address the formation of ZDP films and other tribolayers is what makes them so valuable.
Is there a maximum size / strength / thickness of protective layer created by ZDDP beyond which more can not be added ? And what level of ZDDP create this saturation point. ?
There does appear to be limits to the thickness of the protective layers formed by ZDP. (Lubrizol has a video that shows their layer being about 130 nm thick). But this layer is constantly in flux where it is layed down, removed and replaced by continuous reactions at the surface interfaces. This requires a continual supply of decomposing ZDP to build and rebuild this layer. API testing has determined that a minimum of 600ppm of Phos showing in your oil is what is needed to form these layers.
Are the above formulations from Castrol and Valvoline saying that the Phos and Zinc limit needs to be increased ? I hear from local Castrol techs that the Oz Castrol EDGE 5W30 A3/B4 has about 1000 ppm Zinc.
I can't speak for either of these manufacturers, but what I can say is that for certain OEM claims there may be a cost advantage to using older species and formulas (such as one designed for SL) to avoid repeating expensive engine tests. A lot of the wear requirements are very similar between SL and SN so it's possible to have an oil only claiming SL due to phos restrictions as you mentioned with the Castrol product. I don't think they are saying that the limit needs to be increased.
Most people outside the BITOG community are lucky if they change their oil regularly, let alone choosing an oil based on it's phos content. The major marketers know this and so put out the oils that sell high volumes and have the better profit margins - I hate to say it, but at the end of the day all the cool chemistry in the world can't speak louder than the business interests of those companies.
Solarent,
A couple of comments on your comments...
I personally wouldn't be to quick to heap praise on the industry for introducing the Phosphorus Volatility limit on the Sequence IIIG and using heavier ZDDPs to 'cure' the problem. To me it smacks of muddled thinking, self-interest and shooting the wrong fox.
You're right in saying that light, relatively volatile ZDDPs are better for wear because they 'activate' (or start decomposing) at lower temperatures. This is very important with regard to start-up wear in cold climates. They are also inherently more cost-effective than heavy ZDDPs because the contain a higher ratio of Sulphur & Phosphorus to Alkyl groups, so for a given level of Phos, you need less ZDDP.
Now if you put say a typical US high Noack, all Group II 5W30 (ie one that's crazily half way to being a 0W30 to meet the FE requirements) containing light ZDDP through a test like the Sequence IIIG, you are bound to 'lose' a lot of ZDDP because the test, which runs the oil at 150C for 100 hours, burns a lot of the oil. And yes, you can substitute the light ZDDP with a heavier one and keep more ZDDP in the sump and convince yourself this is a good thing.
However, if you repeated the test on a low Noack 20W40 (which burns almost no oil) I doubt if you would see ANY difference between light and heavy ZDDP. Likewise, repeat the experiment with an all PAO, low Noack 5W30 and you won't see a big difference. And just to top it off, in the future, if you repeat things with the new Sequence IIIH test (which keeps the oil in the sump) you won't see a difference. So the problem is not the light ZDDP per se, it's the fact that you've changed things because you coupled a stupid test to a stupidly volatile oil!
So the nett effect of all of this change is that you've moved to a less effective ZDDP in terms of wear, which costs more for absolutely no reason. Brilliant thinking. Everyone clap!
A couple of comments on your comments...
I personally wouldn't be to quick to heap praise on the industry for introducing the Phosphorus Volatility limit on the Sequence IIIG and using heavier ZDDPs to 'cure' the problem. To me it smacks of muddled thinking, self-interest and shooting the wrong fox.
You're right in saying that light, relatively volatile ZDDPs are better for wear because they 'activate' (or start decomposing) at lower temperatures. This is very important with regard to start-up wear in cold climates. They are also inherently more cost-effective than heavy ZDDPs because the contain a higher ratio of Sulphur & Phosphorus to Alkyl groups, so for a given level of Phos, you need less ZDDP.
Now if you put say a typical US high Noack, all Group II 5W30 (ie one that's crazily half way to being a 0W30 to meet the FE requirements) containing light ZDDP through a test like the Sequence IIIG, you are bound to 'lose' a lot of ZDDP because the test, which runs the oil at 150C for 100 hours, burns a lot of the oil. And yes, you can substitute the light ZDDP with a heavier one and keep more ZDDP in the sump and convince yourself this is a good thing.
However, if you repeated the test on a low Noack 20W40 (which burns almost no oil) I doubt if you would see ANY difference between light and heavy ZDDP. Likewise, repeat the experiment with an all PAO, low Noack 5W30 and you won't see a big difference. And just to top it off, in the future, if you repeat things with the new Sequence IIIH test (which keeps the oil in the sump) you won't see a difference. So the problem is not the light ZDDP per se, it's the fact that you've changed things because you coupled a stupid test to a stupidly volatile oil!
So the nett effect of all of this change is that you've moved to a less effective ZDDP in terms of wear, which costs more for absolutely no reason. Brilliant thinking. Everyone clap!
I totally get your thinking - and I see where you are going here - but to use those volatile ZDDP's like you described you are saying that you need low NOACK oils (ie the 20W40 or all PAO 5W30's) in order to pass the test.
But maybe the reason was we wanted to use our high NOACK, all Group II 5W30 oils because our government needs us to use lighter oils to meet their emission standards and our public is too cheap to pay for all PAO's (that and there isn't enough capacity world wide to switch all engine oils over to PAO).
So we could argue that the test is stupid and should be abolished which I believe is your point and it will soon be with the Sequence IIIH as you mention. I don't know enough of the details about what they are changing in that test vs the IIIG so I can't really comment on that for now.
I wouldn't say that the new ZDDP's are necessarily less effective in terms of wear though. In my mind the shift has just been away from the more volatile ZDDP's and changing the makeup of the films with other components. This produces a net neutral effect on wear or if anything the opportunity for improvement. And as oils get even thinner (going to 0W20 and 0W16) then volatility of the base oil is only going to get worse. So something has to give.
Also ZDDP's aren't just in there for wear - I know you know that already. Oxidation control, nitration, oil drain limits - these are the reasons I don't mind the switch.
But maybe I am clapping a little too loudly...
But maybe the reason was we wanted to use our high NOACK, all Group II 5W30 oils because our government needs us to use lighter oils to meet their emission standards and our public is too cheap to pay for all PAO's (that and there isn't enough capacity world wide to switch all engine oils over to PAO).
So we could argue that the test is stupid and should be abolished which I believe is your point and it will soon be with the Sequence IIIH as you mention. I don't know enough of the details about what they are changing in that test vs the IIIG so I can't really comment on that for now.
I wouldn't say that the new ZDDP's are necessarily less effective in terms of wear though. In my mind the shift has just been away from the more volatile ZDDP's and changing the makeup of the films with other components. This produces a net neutral effect on wear or if anything the opportunity for improvement. And as oils get even thinner (going to 0W20 and 0W16) then volatility of the base oil is only going to get worse. So something has to give.
Also ZDDP's aren't just in there for wear - I know you know that already. Oxidation control, nitration, oil drain limits - these are the reasons I don't mind the switch.
But maybe I am clapping a little too loudly...
Thanks Solarent, Thanks Joe, for all your great answers and effort.
I realise that I am dumbing things down. There are multiple types of ZDDP and it has multiple roles ( tribofilms, oxidation control in oil, etc.), plus there are other ways to create tribofilms.
So lets dumb it down some more and assume there are no legal, regulatory or economic limits to the oil being made. Plus a magic new high flow, low restriction, super efficient and chemically robust exhaust filter system had been invented to remove all the nasties. How much ZDDP would you then put in the oil ?
You mentioned that API testing determined that 600ppm Phos is the minimum required to form these tribofilms, yet just about every VOA I read in PQIA shows every oil bouncing off the higher ~800 ppm limit.
So if I was a big company and I wanted my own oil brand and went to one of the major suppliers to produce it for me. I pointed to one of their well designed off-the-shelf products and said "I'll have that" under my own label, but bump up the ZInc / Phos by another 100 to 200 ppm, and do any final product balancing, as required. What will I have gained ?
Will the oil protect more ? (eg stronger tribofilm, or faster to reform tribofilm )
Will the oil last longer ? (eg good tribofilm can be produced for a longer OCI, or better oil oxidation resistance )
I realise that I am dumbing things down. There are multiple types of ZDDP and it has multiple roles ( tribofilms, oxidation control in oil, etc.), plus there are other ways to create tribofilms.
So lets dumb it down some more and assume there are no legal, regulatory or economic limits to the oil being made. Plus a magic new high flow, low restriction, super efficient and chemically robust exhaust filter system had been invented to remove all the nasties. How much ZDDP would you then put in the oil ?
You mentioned that API testing determined that 600ppm Phos is the minimum required to form these tribofilms, yet just about every VOA I read in PQIA shows every oil bouncing off the higher ~800 ppm limit.
So if I was a big company and I wanted my own oil brand and went to one of the major suppliers to produce it for me. I pointed to one of their well designed off-the-shelf products and said "I'll have that" under my own label, but bump up the ZInc / Phos by another 100 to 200 ppm, and do any final product balancing, as required. What will I have gained ?
Will the oil protect more ? (eg stronger tribofilm, or faster to reform tribofilm )
Will the oil last longer ? (eg good tribofilm can be produced for a longer OCI, or better oil oxidation resistance )
I love all the "inside baseball" talk! Now if I could better understand it and how it might apply to what oil I will use in my hot little turbo....
My OEM wants me to use: A3, A5 or above; GHF-3, GF-4 or above; SL, SM or above; 5w30 or 5W-40.
My OEM wants me to use: A3, A5 or above; GHF-3, GF-4 or above; SL, SM or above; 5w30 or 5W-40.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: SR5
You mentioned that API testing determined that 600ppm Phos is the minimum required to form these tribofilms, yet just about every VOA I read in PQIA shows every oil bouncing off the higher ~800 ppm limit.
The reason for this is easy to answer with simple math 800ppm x 0.79 (which is how much must be left after the IIIG) = 632ppm which is over the 600ppm minimum threshold.
Quote:
So if I was a big company and I wanted my own oil brand and went to one of the major suppliers to produce it for me. I pointed to one of their well designed off-the-shelf products and said "I'll have that" under my own label, but bump up the ZInc / Phos by another 100 to 200 ppm, and do any final product balancing, as required. What will I have gained ?
A more expensive oil that doesn't really have a market - just ask Quaker State who have changed DEFY to a high mileage solution rather than a High ZDDP solution.... oh and big bill from your supplier to run all the engine tests again so you can have your license.
Quote:
Will the oil protect more ? (eg stronger tribofilm, or faster to reform tribofilm )
Will the oil last longer ? (eg good tribofilm can be produced for a longer OCI, or better oil oxidation resistance )
Will it protect more? probably not. maybe a little under certain operating conditions where it favors higher ZDDP concentrations for fast film growth. Will it last longer? Arguably maybe a little due to additional antioxidant ability, but this is more of a function of the dispersant content and base oil type in my mind.
You mentioned that API testing determined that 600ppm Phos is the minimum required to form these tribofilms, yet just about every VOA I read in PQIA shows every oil bouncing off the higher ~800 ppm limit.
The reason for this is easy to answer with simple math 800ppm x 0.79 (which is how much must be left after the IIIG) = 632ppm which is over the 600ppm minimum threshold.
Quote:
So if I was a big company and I wanted my own oil brand and went to one of the major suppliers to produce it for me. I pointed to one of their well designed off-the-shelf products and said "I'll have that" under my own label, but bump up the ZInc / Phos by another 100 to 200 ppm, and do any final product balancing, as required. What will I have gained ?
A more expensive oil that doesn't really have a market - just ask Quaker State who have changed DEFY to a high mileage solution rather than a High ZDDP solution.... oh and big bill from your supplier to run all the engine tests again so you can have your license.
Quote:
Will the oil protect more ? (eg stronger tribofilm, or faster to reform tribofilm )
Will the oil last longer ? (eg good tribofilm can be produced for a longer OCI, or better oil oxidation resistance )
Will it protect more? probably not. maybe a little under certain operating conditions where it favors higher ZDDP concentrations for fast film growth. Will it last longer? Arguably maybe a little due to additional antioxidant ability, but this is more of a function of the dispersant content and base oil type in my mind.
Last edited:
SR5,
Your question is incredibly difficult to answer. Solarent's answer is probably the best direct answer you could get.
If I was to answer your question in my own way, I wouldn't take any modern off the shelf oil; especially if it was a US formulation. They're all wretchedly so bent out of shape they make no sense whatsover (unless you are an OEM).
I would probably say you need a wholly new oil. The primary focus of the oil would be to provide minimum oil cost, low Noack, low VII content, high TBN & highish ZDDP (not to improve improve wear but to minimise the need for supplementary, expensive AOs such as Moly). Fuel economy would be deemphasised as would testing the oil against nutty tests with nutty test limits.
Maybe I'd recommend something like a 10W20 based on Group II + 30% Group III, 10 TBN, 1000 ppm Phos (from cheap light mixed ZDDP), a smidge of Moly, 50 SSI OCP VII, ashless minimised and no PPD. Oh, and I'd say comprehensively field test the oil over different vehicle types and different (and multiple) OCIs rather than run a whole load of one-time expensive engine tests.
Radical stuff eh!
Your question is incredibly difficult to answer. Solarent's answer is probably the best direct answer you could get.
If I was to answer your question in my own way, I wouldn't take any modern off the shelf oil; especially if it was a US formulation. They're all wretchedly so bent out of shape they make no sense whatsover (unless you are an OEM).
I would probably say you need a wholly new oil. The primary focus of the oil would be to provide minimum oil cost, low Noack, low VII content, high TBN & highish ZDDP (not to improve improve wear but to minimise the need for supplementary, expensive AOs such as Moly). Fuel economy would be deemphasised as would testing the oil against nutty tests with nutty test limits.
Maybe I'd recommend something like a 10W20 based on Group II + 30% Group III, 10 TBN, 1000 ppm Phos (from cheap light mixed ZDDP), a smidge of Moly, 50 SSI OCP VII, ashless minimised and no PPD. Oh, and I'd say comprehensively field test the oil over different vehicle types and different (and multiple) OCIs rather than run a whole load of one-time expensive engine tests.
Radical stuff eh!
Originally Posted By: Solarent
The reason for this is easy to answer with simple math 800ppm x 0.79 (which is how much must be left after the IIIG) = 632ppm which is over the 600ppm minimum threshold.
Nice !!! Well explained, I never got that before. Thank you
Originally Posted By: Solarent
Will it protect more? probably not. maybe a little under certain operating conditions where it favors higher ZDDP concentrations for fast film growth.
Excellent, that sorts out another point for me. High concentration of ZDDP should increase film growth rate, under the limited circumstances that require it.
That's probably why racing oils like Penrite or Valvoline VR-1 (even the street legal ones) tend to have higher levels of ZDDP usually above 1000 ppm with some Pentite oil having ~ 1500 ppm from memory. Of course they may be using a different ZDDP and have other secret sauce in there, but they all have high ZDDP. As do most break-in / running-in oils, which want a quick tribofilm formation on "naked" metal.
As for Defy & SN, I assumed it was marketing as most of North America are focused on API & SN. Simply a non-SN oil doesn't sell well in North America. Here in Australia I can name a few oils that sell on their ACEA or OEM specs yet don't meet SN, and they seem to sell OK.
But marketing is what I'm trying to sort out, ILSAC and QS Defy and new Mobil 1 High Mileage say I don't need high ZDDP to get the job done. Yet Valvoline VR-1 (ok, it's a racing oil) and Penrite (even most of their non-racing oils) and Castrol EDGE 5W30 A3/B4 and SynPower FE A5/B5 (I assume, it's SL) say I'm better off with more ZDDP. They can't both be right, but I suspect there is a bit of marketing on both sides.
Thanks again for your help, just trying to sort out the chemistry from the marketing. Mostly out of personal interest, my car requires nothing special. And I dislike not knowing why, especially when two groups tell me the opposite.
The reason for this is easy to answer with simple math 800ppm x 0.79 (which is how much must be left after the IIIG) = 632ppm which is over the 600ppm minimum threshold.
Nice !!! Well explained, I never got that before. Thank you
Originally Posted By: Solarent
Will it protect more? probably not. maybe a little under certain operating conditions where it favors higher ZDDP concentrations for fast film growth.
Excellent, that sorts out another point for me. High concentration of ZDDP should increase film growth rate, under the limited circumstances that require it.
That's probably why racing oils like Penrite or Valvoline VR-1 (even the street legal ones) tend to have higher levels of ZDDP usually above 1000 ppm with some Pentite oil having ~ 1500 ppm from memory. Of course they may be using a different ZDDP and have other secret sauce in there, but they all have high ZDDP. As do most break-in / running-in oils, which want a quick tribofilm formation on "naked" metal.
As for Defy & SN, I assumed it was marketing as most of North America are focused on API & SN. Simply a non-SN oil doesn't sell well in North America. Here in Australia I can name a few oils that sell on their ACEA or OEM specs yet don't meet SN, and they seem to sell OK.
But marketing is what I'm trying to sort out, ILSAC and QS Defy and new Mobil 1 High Mileage say I don't need high ZDDP to get the job done. Yet Valvoline VR-1 (ok, it's a racing oil) and Penrite (even most of their non-racing oils) and Castrol EDGE 5W30 A3/B4 and SynPower FE A5/B5 (I assume, it's SL) say I'm better off with more ZDDP. They can't both be right, but I suspect there is a bit of marketing on both sides.
Thanks again for your help, just trying to sort out the chemistry from the marketing. Mostly out of personal interest, my car requires nothing special. And I dislike not knowing why, especially when two groups tell me the opposite.
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
SR5,
Your question is incredibly difficult to answer.
Yeah, sorry about that, bad habit of mine.
I'm only doing this out of chemical engineering interest. Speaking to you and Solarent (yes excellent answer) and others here, I realise that knowing the oil's spec is a long way from knowing how the oil is formulated, or how it performs. Not that it concerns me too much, I just buy a good name brand on sale, and don't push the OCI to far.
Must go, I'm on a tropical island paradise with my family for Christmas holidays, and my young son wants to go swimming.
Cheers.
SR5,
Your question is incredibly difficult to answer.
Yeah, sorry about that, bad habit of mine.
I'm only doing this out of chemical engineering interest. Speaking to you and Solarent (yes excellent answer) and others here, I realise that knowing the oil's spec is a long way from knowing how the oil is formulated, or how it performs. Not that it concerns me too much, I just buy a good name brand on sale, and don't push the OCI to far.
Must go, I'm on a tropical island paradise with my family for Christmas holidays, and my young son wants to go swimming.
Cheers.
Reference 600 ppm Phosphorous being minimum threshhold, some used oil analysis here with (seemingly) good numbers do indicate P of 500ish ppm.
How would one detect negative effects/results of breaching minimum threshhold of P as in say...... ppm of certain metals, viscosity , Flash points etc?
How would one detect negative effects/results of breaching minimum threshhold of P as in say...... ppm of certain metals, viscosity , Flash points etc?
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
SR5,
If I was to answer your question in my own way, I wouldn't take any modern off the shelf oil....
I would probably say you need a wholly new oil....
Maybe I'd recommend something like a 10W20 based on Group II + 30% Group III, 10 TBN, 1000 ppm Phos (from cheap light mixed ZDDP), a smidge of Moly, 50 SSI OCP VII, ashless minimised and no PPD.
Right back from swimming and time for lunch. How does man get a Piña Colada around here? Hold the fruit......tin that, just make it a double rum on ice.
Anyway Joe, that's easy for you to say, but for us mortals it is not an option. We are limited to off-the-shelf products.
OK, let me ask you this. You walk into a shop, and they draw your lucky number, so you win a free 5L jug of Valvoline SynPower 5W30 oil. The choice is SynPower FE 5W30 (SL, A5/B5, Ford WSS-M2C-913D) or SynPower DX1 5W30 (SN, GF-5, Dexos1). Either one is yours free.
Both full synthetic from the same manufacturer, both a fuel conserving 5W30 so of similar viscosity, both have the same Noack limit. The big difference is that the FE has more ZDDP (~ 1000 ppm) and more TBN (~10) while the DX1 has less ZDDP (~800 ppm) and less TBN (~7.5).
Ignoring the GM Vs Ford thing, which free oil do you walk out with ?
PS both these are real products at the same price for me. The TBN is based on published values, the ZDDP is a bit of a guess (but let's play along anyway). The DX1 is slightly thicker (KV100 = 10.8) and the FE is slightly thinner (KV100 = 9.9) based on a few PDS I found, but both still similar to many GF-5 5W30 already out there.
SR5,
If I was to answer your question in my own way, I wouldn't take any modern off the shelf oil....
I would probably say you need a wholly new oil....
Maybe I'd recommend something like a 10W20 based on Group II + 30% Group III, 10 TBN, 1000 ppm Phos (from cheap light mixed ZDDP), a smidge of Moly, 50 SSI OCP VII, ashless minimised and no PPD.
Right back from swimming and time for lunch. How does man get a Piña Colada around here? Hold the fruit......tin that, just make it a double rum on ice.
Anyway Joe, that's easy for you to say, but for us mortals it is not an option. We are limited to off-the-shelf products.
OK, let me ask you this. You walk into a shop, and they draw your lucky number, so you win a free 5L jug of Valvoline SynPower 5W30 oil. The choice is SynPower FE 5W30 (SL, A5/B5, Ford WSS-M2C-913D) or SynPower DX1 5W30 (SN, GF-5, Dexos1). Either one is yours free.
Both full synthetic from the same manufacturer, both a fuel conserving 5W30 so of similar viscosity, both have the same Noack limit. The big difference is that the FE has more ZDDP (~ 1000 ppm) and more TBN (~10) while the DX1 has less ZDDP (~800 ppm) and less TBN (~7.5).
Ignoring the GM Vs Ford thing, which free oil do you walk out with ?
PS both these are real products at the same price for me. The TBN is based on published values, the ZDDP is a bit of a guess (but let's play along anyway). The DX1 is slightly thicker (KV100 = 10.8) and the FE is slightly thinner (KV100 = 9.9) based on a few PDS I found, but both still similar to many GF-5 5W30 already out there.
Originally Posted By: Solarent
A more expensive oil that doesn't really have a market ........ oh and big bill from your supplier to run all the engine tests again so you can have your license.
Don't worry I'm bottling oil for the likes of Bentley and Rolls Royce. My customers don't expect anything special in terms of performance, but it must be expensive and exclusive. And I need to be able to say it's unique, hence off-the-shelf plus another 100 ppm ZDDP to make it a one-off.
So you can't use the read across rules to skip most of the tests ? It's based on a quality existing product. Doesn't matter, I'll just do a Ferrari and define my oil as the only official licenced Bentley - RR oil and skip all the other specs. They will still buy it.
A more expensive oil that doesn't really have a market ........ oh and big bill from your supplier to run all the engine tests again so you can have your license.
Don't worry I'm bottling oil for the likes of Bentley and Rolls Royce. My customers don't expect anything special in terms of performance, but it must be expensive and exclusive. And I need to be able to say it's unique, hence off-the-shelf plus another 100 ppm ZDDP to make it a one-off.
So you can't use the read across rules to skip most of the tests ? It's based on a quality existing product. Doesn't matter, I'll just do a Ferrari and define my oil as the only official licenced Bentley - RR oil and skip all the other specs. They will still buy it.
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
If it were me, I'd pick the 10 TBN, 1000 ppm FE oil. Enjoy your free oil!
Yeah, me too.
Now if only the FE came as a 10w30, I would be set.
If it were me, I'd pick the 10 TBN, 1000 ppm FE oil. Enjoy your free oil!
Yeah, me too.
Now if only the FE came as a 10w30, I would be set.
Originally Posted By: SR5
Originally Posted By: Solarent
The reason for this is easy to answer with simple math 800ppm x 0.79 (which is how much must be left after the IIIG) = 632ppm which is over the 600ppm minimum threshold.
Nice !!! Well explained, I never got that before. Thank you
Still don't get why its 0.79, a really weird number to pick for a standard.
It can't have been too much of a stretch to get to 80%, surely?
Originally Posted By: Solarent
The reason for this is easy to answer with simple math 800ppm x 0.79 (which is how much must be left after the IIIG) = 632ppm which is over the 600ppm minimum threshold.
Nice !!! Well explained, I never got that before. Thank you
Still don't get why its 0.79, a really weird number to pick for a standard.
It can't have been too much of a stretch to get to 80%, surely?
Originally Posted By: SR5
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
If it were me, I'd pick the 10 TBN, 1000 ppm FE oil. Enjoy your free oil!
Yeah, me too.
Now if only the FE came as a 10w30, I would be set.
That's pretty much Castrol EDGE 10w30. I doubt the 913 lubes would have as much as 1000ppm ZDDP.
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
If it were me, I'd pick the 10 TBN, 1000 ppm FE oil. Enjoy your free oil!
Yeah, me too.
Now if only the FE came as a 10w30, I would be set.
That's pretty much Castrol EDGE 10w30. I doubt the 913 lubes would have as much as 1000ppm ZDDP.
Originally Posted By: SR5
Originally Posted By: Solarent
The reason for this is easy to answer with simple math 800ppm x 0.79 (which is how much must be left after the IIIG) = 632ppm which is over the 600ppm minimum threshold.
Nice !!! Well explained, I never got that before. Thank you
Yes, that is a great explanation, and I'm glad he gave us that. I never really considered the actual ramifications of phosphorus minimums and phosphorus retention during testing.
With your mention of A5/B5 only oils (i.e. no API certification at all) in your market, you're quite right about our market. Outside of BITOGers and some European enthusiasts, trying to sell an oil like that here would be a fool's errand.
Originally Posted By: Solarent
The reason for this is easy to answer with simple math 800ppm x 0.79 (which is how much must be left after the IIIG) = 632ppm which is over the 600ppm minimum threshold.
Nice !!! Well explained, I never got that before. Thank you
Yes, that is a great explanation, and I'm glad he gave us that. I never really considered the actual ramifications of phosphorus minimums and phosphorus retention during testing.
With your mention of A5/B5 only oils (i.e. no API certification at all) in your market, you're quite right about our market. Outside of BITOGers and some European enthusiasts, trying to sell an oil like that here would be a fool's errand.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked