At work I drove '04 GMC 4x4 with an LS for many years, and it developed piston slap noise at around 100k kms. Kept on slapping until it went to auction with close to 500k kms. Everything else was falling apart by then, but it still ran fine.
Actually, too much POE content results in surface competition for anti-wear additives, making them less effective. That's why the the majority base oil in Redline is PAO, like with other higher-end boutique oils like AMSOIL.If you want to get maximum protection from cold and dry starts - assuming vehicle is outside, Redline high performance oil is way to go. Big advantages with flow rate and clinging to the metal due to polarized esters. Any group 3 with cake up at cold temps...
by the way I put RL HPMO in a newly acquired Acura RSX I just got for my 15 y.o. It has 175k miles on it, and it runs so well with the Redline.
I did it because the engine was so well maintained by first owner.... every 3-4k miles. Winter will be easy as pie.
So, you've went out and taken a certified device to various vehicles and verified that there are no noise differences?2 things I'm stating:
1. Your ear is not a calibrated device. Your environment is not controlled. You CANNOT determine a noise difference this insignificant.
2. Have we ever seen any proof at all that a single digit (guestimate) reduction in decibel means anything to engine wear or life? I personally haven't.
You clearly didn't comprehend what I wrote since I never stated there cannot be noise differences between oils.So, you've went out and taken a certified device to various vehicles and verified that there are no noise differences?
Or are you just parroting random internet myth and information without actually having verified it yourself?
Actually, too much POE content results in surface competition for anti-wear additives, making them less effective. That's why the the majority base oil in Redline is PAO, like with other higher-end boutique oils like AMSOIL.
PPD's prevent waxy bases (like Group III) from experiencing wax crystal formation within the oil's Winter grade range.
What's available from Mobil for example, in terms of polyol esters (POE) is not a huge slate, they only make two:I would think that a few % POE would be too much if it's the wrong kind. And no matter how much wouldn't be too much if it's not. Polarity drives the competition for surface area, and the higher viscosity POE molecules have longer HC tails which makes them less polar. Then there's temperature effects, I don't know if this affects zddp and POE (or other polar fluids) the same, but the higher the temperature the less they are attracted to metal surfaces.
PE ester based lubricants performed better than TMP ester based lubricants. The performance of commercial base lubricant mixed with PE ester up to 20% blending ratio is found to be optimum with deterioration observed past 20%. In case of TMP ester mixed with commercial lubricant base the optimum blending ratio is found to be 85:15.
As seen from Fig. 5a and b, up to last non seizure load point (C) all blends performed very well indicating effectiveness at lower loads. In the incipient seizure region (C-D) and immediate seizure region (D-E), the blends with 20 and 25% PE ester experienced a sharp increase in the wears scar diameters affecting the load wear index and the weld load. Due to this, although the weld load weld load remained the same as that of commercial oil, there is a reduction in the load wear index due to poor anti-wear performance of the blends after seizure load. Blends with percentage of PE ester below 20% and TMP ester below 15% could fare very well in these regions. This can be ascribed to the synergy between esters and additives in the commercial oil leading to an enhanced surface lubricity.
Under extreme temperatures produced by extraordinary operating pressures, the EP additives in the commercial oil react with the metal surfaces creating new compounds like iron phosphides and iron sulfides on the contact surface. These metal compounds form a chemical film on the surface which acts as a barrier thereby decreasing friction, wear and lessen the chance of welding. The worn surfaces of the balls prior to weld load during EP test were characterized in a metallurgical microscope for the structure. Figs. 6 and 7 depict the images taken from metallographic microscopes with worn balls of EP test prior to weld load. The images are taken at 20x resolution on a metallurgical microscope. It can be seen that base oil and base oil mixed with 10% and 15% PE ester as well as TMP have performed very well.
The wear scar in all cases is less and the esters could prevent abrasive wear during extreme pressure conditions. In case of pure ester and oils mixed with 20% and 25% PE and TMP esters, a severe abrasive wear could be noted indicating ineffectiveness at higher concentrations.
A theory emerged of surface competition whereby carboxylic acids and some esters would bind strongly to the surface to reduce friction in a base oil. However, in a full formulation, they would displace or prevent the full formation of an AW film. Industry gradually migrated to either oleyl amides or glycerol monooleate7 as ashless friction modifiers, where the amide or glycerol ester head group that adsorbs onto the metal surface is less polar, so more labile.
Gareth Moody of Croda Europe Ltd. offers an observation about tribofilms and friction modifiers, where there is a balance between performance and solubility: “Often we see that friction modifiers, which are not fully soluble (cause haze, etc.), work really well at reducing friction. The balance is getting the friction modifier to the surface as efficiently as possible without compromising the stability of the formulated lubricant. This also is true for polymeric friction modifiers.”
During the 1990s, Japanese OEMs were taking an interest in molybdenum-based friction modifiers. This was partly due to concerns about the durability of organic friction modifiers. While some studies focused on molybdenum dithiophosphates, it was soon recognized that there was little performance difference when mixed with ZDDP if molybdenum dithiocarbamates were used.8, 9, 10 Thus, a theory emerged of ZDDP as a phosphate donor to molybdenum emerged.11
STLE member Vince Gatto of Vanderbilt Chemicals LLC says, “In engine oils, ZDDP functions by forming various glassy polyphosphate films, which are very effective at reducing wear but not very good at reducing friction. Molybdenum dithiocarbamates function in a way that synergizes with ZDDP by producing more durable friction reducing MoS2 tribofilms.10 Replenishment of the MoS2 tribofims is enhanced by ligand exchange between ZDDP and MoDTC.”11
More recently, ZDDPs have been shown to reduce the incidence of LSPI,12 the scourge of small direct-injection gasoline engines. But there’s no happy ending to this part of the story, according to Steve Haffner. “One of the main additive suppliers has reported up to 90% reduction in LSPI events when overtreating some formulations with ZDDP. Unfortunately, chemical limits contained in both American Petroleum Institute (API) and the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA) specifications do not allow higher phosphorus concentrations in lubricants designed to protect three-way catalysts.”
We comprehend what you’re saying. It’s just that what you’re saying is wrong.You clearly didn't comprehend what I wrote since I never stated there cannot be noise differences between oils.
In fact my second point implies I believe it's possible for there to be a noise difference.
|Density at 20 °C||kg/m³||839,0||EN ISO 12185|
|Viscosity at 100 °C||mm²/s||7,9||DIN 51562-1|
|Viscosity at 40 °C||mm²/s||43,1||DIN 51562-1|
|Viscosity Index VI||156||DIN ISO 2909|
|HTHS Viscosity at 150 °C||mPa*s||2,64||ASTM D5481|
|CCS Viscosity at -35 °C||mPa*s||4890||ASTM D5293|
|Low Temp. Pumping viscosity (MRV) at -40 °C||mPa*s||10.000||ASTM D4684|
|Pourpoint||°C||-63||DIN ISO 3016|
|Noack Volatility||% M/M||7,4||ASTM D5800|
|Flashpoint||°C||240||DIN EN ISO 2592|
|tbn||mg KOH/g||8,0||ASTM D2896|
|Sulphated Ash||%wt.||0,79||DIN 51575|