Blending Versus Mixing

[wemay]

Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
After reading all that, I'm ready to attend an MA (Mixer's Anonymous) meeting. "My name is Brad and I'm a Mixer...."

Yet, frankenbrews have low iron wear in general. Uh-oh, I'm sinking down again.

 

[BrocLuno]

Back in the day, when I was hauling oil stocks all over, one of my stops was Houghton Oil in SSF. I would call them a blender. I got to know some of their techs and they explained stuff...

They controlled temp, availability to open air (Qx, Ni, etc.), agitation time and rates and other factors... Their products were certainly repeatable and verifiable. They bought base and blending stocks from all the local major refiners, plus additive companies.

Some of those additives were nasty packages. It might have taken two or three flushes with pipeline gasoline deliveries to get the tanks clean. My tanks were aluminum, so I could not even handle some of the additives - they had to go in SS tanks...

Point being, mixers are a L-O-N-G way from real belnders ...

 

[weasley]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: userfriendly
If Sulphur is naturally occurring in group I and II base oils, would that make it a better lubricant, sans additives?


No, and it's because of the higher oxidation potentials of Group I and II.


I would be a bit less definitive and say "mostly, no". Some of the sulphur compounds do offer lubricity benefits and even some natural antioxidancy, but overall this is countered by other factors that mean they are not better in most dimensions. And since you don't use base oils naked anyway, it is a moot point.

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Once again, we have to consider a large list of issues and not focus on just one aspect when considering lubricant chemistry.


Yes, this. Which is frequently missing in many BITOG threads.

 

[BrocLuno]

Not meaning to hi-jack this thread, but thought I'd toss this in too ... Re-refiners are the next step above pure blenders like Houghton. They have stocks they produce and blend with others they buy plus additive packages.

This page discusses those who are either in Calif, or do business with the State of Calif to meet the mandate for "recycled" product content. Some of the products are very good, but somewhat hard to come by if you don't order in bulk (55gals min.)...

http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/UsedOil/Rerefined/Distributors.htm

 

[userfriendly]

With the elimination of sulfur in Diesel fuel was anything added to the engine oil to gain back the lost lubricity?
Did the sulfur in the fuel lower wear rates in Diesel engines?

 

[BrocLuno]

Apparently it did because there were literally tens of thousands of injector pumps that died when the sulfur went away. We are still having injector pump failures in off-road equipment and older tractors that took until now to accumulate enough hours with low sulfur diesel to finally die ...

Folks were putting ATF in the diesel to try to stave off the inevitable...

 

[Garak]

I know there were some fuel additives that were supposed to help. I don't know how well they fared; some swore by them. It seems that the newer technology diesels (as in newer technology before all the emissions stuff) fared better on ULSD. I never heard of really any problems around here with the early Powerstrokes. I know the Chevy 6.5 turbodiesels had problems; some seemed to do okay by some heat shielding. Others swore by the additives.

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: userfriendly
With the elimination of sulfur in Diesel fuel was anything added to the engine oil to gain back the lost lubricity?


Are you making the assumption that somehow the sulfur in diesel fuel added some advantage to the motor oil?



Quote:
Did the sulfur in the fuel lower wear rates in Diesel engines?


Sulfur hydroxide emissions were lowered with the newer diesel fuel, although the injector pump manyf. had to redesign some of their pumps, but this has shifted the main topic.