An oil's cleaning abilities

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
4,913
Location
Kuwait
This is something I've been meaning to ask for a while. What is it that affects an oil's so called "cleaning ability"?

On the one hand, you've got PYB which claims to clean up to 40% of engine sludge by the end of the oil change with its Group II+ base stock. On the other hand, you've got something like Motorcraft or Kendall synthetic blends meeting the same specification (for the sake of argument say SN/GF-5) with a Group II/III mix that don't make any cleaning claims. Then you have something like Pennzoil Platinum, and HDEO's using Group II base stocks that are diesel rated with higher levels of detergency to combat soot.

On the other end of the spectrum, you've got Pennzoil Ulta with its GTL base stock and then something like Redline with its Group V esters.

In the first instance, I would assume cleaning ability has more to do with the add pack than the base oil, whereas in the second, purely the base stock. Would this be a correct assumption?

Also, what additives would be considered "active cleaning agents" as described by SOPUS that would be nice to have higher doses of?

Not to start a debate or anything, but I'm really looking for some factual answers out of curiosity.
 
Must be non metalic/solid additives, since Penzoil doesn't show anything unusual on voa/oua.
 
Last edited:
It would appear that the exact mixture of base oil and additives falls under proprietary. Only listed on spec sheets is the performance of the finished product. VOA/UOA's provide some clues, but I suspect many of the additives are not part of standard testing. Keeping away from debate as requested, using my preferred cleaning oil as example.. The product description of M1 HM lists Mobil 1's full syn with "extra cleaners". I can't find any info on what they are, how much more than standard M1. I'm left to judge cleaning potential based on experience with other oils not anything conclusive
 
Originally Posted By: Falcon_LS
...What is it that affects an oil's so called "cleaning ability"?

On the one hand, you've got PYB which claims to clean up to40% of engine sludge by the end of the oil change with its Group II+ base stock...

Mainly it's whatever the company has decided to focus on in their advertising. I italicized "up to" because that is a classic advertising technique, which in fact really means "as little as 0% and theoretically as much as 40% but no more". It's essentially a guarantee that it'll do less than whatever number follows. It wouldn't sound as good if they worded it that way though
grin.gif


I'll leave it to more knowledgable folks to address your specific queries on base stocks and additive composition. I'm skeptical you'll get much valid info.

jeff
 
I think calcium does double duty as an anti-wear and cleaning agent.
My guess is whatever compounds in the additive package that are closer to being a base on the ph scale would also contribute to cleaning.
I'm speculating but it stands to reason this would be the case. And compounds in the add pack may work together,complimenting each others abilities. Again speculation.
 
Of coarse there are detergents to look for and multi purpose addites like boron but it seems some oils clean better than other oils with the same basestocks and detergent levels. It must be something we cant see thats doing the cleaning in some cases. Maybe esters used as additives? Cant be sure. I think it best to look at an oils performance as a whole, rather than any one part of it.

As far as redline, we know why its a good cleaner. Its got a healthy detergent level and its an ester based oil.
 
Originally Posted By: electrolover
Of coarse there are detergents to look for and multi purpose addites like boron but it seems some oils clean better than other oils with the same basestocks and detergent levels. It must be something we cant see thats doing the cleaning in some cases. Maybe esters used as additives? Cant be sure. I think it best to look at an oils performance as a whole, rather than any one part of it.

As far as redline, we know why its a good cleaner. Its got a healthy detergent level and its an ester based oil.


Agreed. When I see posts that touch on an oils additive package being balanced it makes sense.
It also makes sense that adding aftermarket additives can upset this balance. When dealing in parts per million it wouldn't take much to affect how an oil was formulated to work.
 
I think one can assume that as you get into better and better synthetic oils, their cleaning abilities will be better. But I agree, the exact details may be known to only the manuacturer.

For me, I just do not have time to read and comprehend all the details about various oils cleaning abilities. I am comfortable that if I use PU it will be among the best at cleaning. Given its at Walmart for a reasonable price, I need look no further.
 
The G4 & 5 full synthetic base stocks do act as a kind of solvent in effect, so synthetics do have a head start in cleaning terms.
The 3 elements listed in a VOA or visible in a UOA that act as detergents and dispersants are Calcium, Magnesium and Boron. The Calcium figure is normally the most important but some new synthetic oils have started to use more Magnesium based detergents. Those elements don't disappear in a UOA even when they are no longer active, so you can still see them in a UOA.
 
Originally Posted By: MBS500
Must be non metalic/solid additives, since Penzoil doesn't show anything unusual on voa/oua.



Some of the new additives are actually organic based and aren't normally tested for in VOAs.
 
IIRC, as oils are more heavily hydrotreated, they lose their solvency. Group IV (PAO) would also have less solvency than Group III and lower. So, higher basestocks (not including ester-based Group V stock,) have less solubility, making them worse dispersants.

Blenders would use the higher base stock in conjunction with additives to attain a good mix of performance and longevity (cleaning ability, VI and oxidation resistance.)

Note, I am not an oil tribologist and don't claim to be, but this is what I recall. I just wanted to counter the "G4 stock is a solvent" assertion.
 
Originally Posted By: greenjp
Mainly it's whatever the company has decided to focus on in their advertising. I italicized "up to" because that is a classic advertising technique, which in fact really means "as little as 0% and theoretically as much as 40% but no more".


Even if we take the claims at face value and agree that PYB is the best "cleaning" conventional PCMO out there, that doesn't mean other SN/GF-5 conventionals are slackers, either. Their page states that no leading conventional oil cleans better based on Sequence VG sludge test using SAE 5W-30. That may be true. In fact, it's still technically true if it's only marginally better than the rest.

Pennzoil has decided to focus on cleanliness. Sure, it's marketing. They had to combat the sludge/wax buildup business from years back. I'm sure they've improved PYB over the years. All other oils have improved, too.

It's pretty hard to go wrong by purchasing an oil in the correct grade and service category from a reputable manufacturer and changing it as directed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top