BMW N54 Engine - best oil at the present?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Good discussion and shows the overall weakness of our knowledge base, including mine. I would hope we could get one or more of the wise men/blender guys (Shannow, MolaKule, Joe90, others I'm sure) to comment here. Dilution of additives comes to mind for instance with one of the stats above showing a less then 1% of a type being included. And when does the inclusion at a percentage of a certain group oils make that oil "mostly based on this or that type", i.e., What makes an "ester based" oil ester based?

We've established in the past that VOA's/UOA's and MSDS's are a complete [censored] as to fitment for a purpose. Or even if the same components are in the same oils over any great length of time as formulations change for any number of reasons (oil companies choose to meet standards rather than selling/guaranteeing what's in the oil, that's why they're "secret"). Frankly, if we don't get some more consistent and substantive data then all of our discussions and passions are for naught as far as I can tell. Just noise. The possibly deleted word up there is a gambling term and not an obxcenity.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: DeepFriar
Good discussion and shows the overall weakness of our knowledge base, including mine. I would hope we could get one or more of the wise men/blender guys (Shannow, MolaKule, Joe90, others I'm sure) to comment here. Dilution of additives comes to mind for instance with one of the stats above showing a less then 1% of a type being included. And when does the inclusion at a percentage of a certain group oils make that oil "mostly based on this or that type", i.e., What makes an "ester based" oil ester based?

We've established in the past that VOA's/UOA's and MSDS's are a complete [censored] as to fitment for a purpose. Or even if the same components are in the same oils over any great length of time as formulations change for any number of reasons (oil companies choose to meet standards rather than selling/guaranteeing what's in the oil, that's why they're "secret"). Frankly, if we don't get some more consistent and substantive data then all of our discussions and passions are for naught as far as I can tell. Just noise. The possibly deleted word up there is a gambling term and not an obxcenity.


Generally as long as PAO is ~50%, it can be labelled "full synthetic" in Germany. So even if that 5w-40 is 25-50% Group III, if the rest of it is PAO or PAO/Ester it could be labelled "full synthetic".
 
Quote:
Generally as long as PAO is ~50%, it can be labelled "full synthetic" in Germany. So even if that 5w-40 is 25-50% Group III, if the rest of it is PAO or PAO/Ester it could be labelled "full synthetic".


Thanks for that. Any idea then on the "ester based" scenario? Does the same logic apply, meaning over 50% ester for instance? I know this steps outside the regulatory arena, just wondering if there was an opinion on that?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: volodymyr
edyvw,

Originally Posted By: edyvw

Tough words from a country whose air force works from 08.00am until Noon, and from 02.00pm until 07.00pm and then goes home.
You live in a country that will cooperate with anyone as long as they have cash in the pockets, so please, let's leave on a side principles.


Both statements may be valid and true and bad, I agree. On the other hand we are here discussing the definition of 'high German quality' statement and in light of dieselgate scandal it is clear that no such thing exists. This is a clear fact that they have used the firmware to detect the emission testing procedures, which is clearly cheating. Cheating is bad, it kills trust, hence my comment on this that in Switzerland people started to question 'made in Germany' slogan.

Update: how my comment on 'made in Germany' relates to any of your statements I have no idea
smile.gif


My statement does not have to do anything with this topic, as well as yours. That was my point. Whether VW cheats or not is completely different of what says in legislative books in Germany.
If Motul, Catsrol, Pentosin etc, were cheating by labeling their oils full synthetic in Germany while having less then 50% of Gr IV or V, then you could draw a line between VW and that.
But because VW cheated you will generalize whole country? Smells like typical European chauvinism with little bit of nationalism. I know, I am also from there.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: DeepFriar
Good discussion and shows the overall weakness of our knowledge base, including mine. I would hope we could get one or more of the wise men/blender guys (Shannow, MolaKule, Joe90, others I'm sure) to comment here. Dilution of additives comes to mind for instance with one of the stats above showing a less then 1% of a type being included. And when does the inclusion at a percentage of a certain group oils make that oil "mostly based on this or that type", i.e., What makes an "ester based" oil ester based?

We've established in the past that VOA's/UOA's and MSDS's are a complete [censored] as to fitment for a purpose. Or even if the same components are in the same oils over any great length of time as formulations change for any number of reasons (oil companies choose to meet standards rather than selling/guaranteeing what's in the oil, that's why they're "secret"). Frankly, if we don't get some more consistent and substantive data then all of our discussions and passions are for naught as far as I can tell. Just noise. The possibly deleted word up there is a gambling term and not an obxcenity.


Generally as long as PAO is ~50%, it can be labelled "full synthetic" in Germany. So even if that 5w-40 is 25-50% Group III, if the rest of it is PAO or PAO/Ester it could be labelled "full synthetic".

Which proves point that it does not matter whether PAO or Easter in 50% or more, but actually how you cook all that.
 
Originally Posted By: edyvw
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: DeepFriar
Good discussion and shows the overall weakness of our knowledge base, including mine. I would hope we could get one or more of the wise men/blender guys (Shannow, MolaKule, Joe90, others I'm sure) to comment here. Dilution of additives comes to mind for instance with one of the stats above showing a less then 1% of a type being included. And when does the inclusion at a percentage of a certain group oils make that oil "mostly based on this or that type", i.e., What makes an "ester based" oil ester based?

We've established in the past that VOA's/UOA's and MSDS's are a complete [censored] as to fitment for a purpose. Or even if the same components are in the same oils over any great length of time as formulations change for any number of reasons (oil companies choose to meet standards rather than selling/guaranteeing what's in the oil, that's why they're "secret"). Frankly, if we don't get some more consistent and substantive data then all of our discussions and passions are for naught as far as I can tell. Just noise. The possibly deleted word up there is a gambling term and not an obxcenity.


Generally as long as PAO is ~50%, it can be labelled "full synthetic" in Germany. So even if that 5w-40 is 25-50% Group III, if the rest of it is PAO or PAO/Ester it could be labelled "full synthetic".

Which proves point that it does not matter whether PAO or Easter in 50% or more, but actually how you cook all that.


Exactly.
 
Originally Posted By: DeepFriar
Quote:
Generally as long as PAO is ~50%, it can be labelled "full synthetic" in Germany. So even if that 5w-40 is 25-50% Group III, if the rest of it is PAO or PAO/Ester it could be labelled "full synthetic".


Thanks for that. Any idea then on the "ester based" scenario? Does the same logic apply, meaning over 50% ester for instance? I know this steps outside the regulatory arena, just wondering if there was an opinion on that?


Same thing. Basically if anything Group IV or V (both synthetic) push the percentage of the base of ~50% or higher, it is "majority" synthetic and can thus be called full synthetic.

Now, I don't know how frequently this stuff is checked or what the requirement is for the blender/oil company to update their labelling. M1 0w-40, at least via MSDS, has shown to be majority PAO, then not, then back to majority PAO again and it has been an "SHC" oil in terms of labelling in Germany throughout. Though I would add that Trav stated (IIRC) that he saw some full synthetic labelled M1 0w-40 there but didn't know if it was old or new stock. This was after the MSDS was updated showing 50-60% PAO.
 
Originally Posted By: DeepFriar
Quote:
Generally as long as PAO is ~50%, it can be labelled "full synthetic" in Germany. So even if that 5w-40 is 25-50% Group III, if the rest of it is PAO or PAO/Ester it could be labelled "full synthetic".


Thanks for that. Any idea then on the "ester based" scenario? Does the same logic apply, meaning over 50% ester for instance? I know this steps outside the regulatory arena, just wondering if there was an opinion on that?


I think this scenario is just too good to be true. At least Motul X-cess' Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) doesn't show such thing and I hardly doubt that 50% ester content is viable considering the prise of said oil.
Regarding VW diesel scandal and the "collapse" of Germany's image as a world symbol of quality - I think that it's impossible to delete such a status of island of quality that has been established by Germany for centuries with a simple fail, I'm still considering Germany as a top quality country.
 
As far as I can tell there has not been a single statement made that Motul Xcess is over 50% ester. High PAO/ester content, yes. Overkill's point was that if the PAO and ester content together exceeds 50% then it is to be considered fully synthetic.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
If you guys are talking about 8100 X-Cess 5w-40, it has a pour point of -36C. Seems a bit high. Most 5w-40 oils with hefty PAO content that I have seen have pour point below -40C.


MSDS shows:

25-50% DISTILLATES (PETROLEUM), HYDROTREATED HEAVY PARAFFINIC CAS# 64742-54-7
25-50% LUBRICATING OILS (PETROLEUM), C20-50, HYDROTREATED NEUTRAL OIL-BASED CAS# 72623-87-1


I'm not very good at reading these MSDS and knowing what it all means. But for comparison here is one from Penrite 10-Tenths Racing line of oils which are 100% PAO and Ester. This is from the 20W60.

1-Dodecene, trimer, hydrogenated; CAS# 151006-62-1; 30%-40%
1-Octene, homopolymer, hydrogenated; CAS# 70693-43-5; 20%-25%
1-Propene, polymer with ethene; CAS# 9010-79-1; Zinc dialkyl dithiophosphate; CAS# 68649-42-3; Alkyl phenol; proprietary; Calcium long-chain alkyl sulphonate; proprietary; Alkaryl amine; proprietary; Other non-hazardous ingredients; To 100%

The 5W30 is (larger amounts)
1-Dodecene, trimer, hydrogenated; CAS# 151006-62-1; 50%-60%
1-Propene, polymer with ethene; CAS# 9010--79-1; Alkaryl amine; no CAS; Alkylated diphenylamine; no CAS;
The 10W40 (larger amounts)
Mixture of 1-Decene, tetramer mixed with 1-decene trimer, hydrogenated & 1-Decene, homopolymer, hydrogenated; CAS# 68649-12-7/68037-01-4; >60%
1-Propene, polymer with ethene; CAS# 9010--79-1; 10%-30%

Also, I found a MSDS for a pure PAO oil (not engine oil), and it says:
1-decene tetramer, mixed with 1-decene trimer, hydrogenated; CAS# 68649-12-7; 100%

So, does this mean the hydrogenated trimers and homopolymers are the PAOs ?
And the Propene / ethene polymers are the Esters? or maybe the VII?

Happy for any help in translating.
 
Originally Posted By: Mathson


Well actually MSDS for Motul 300V Comp 15W-50 shows,

DISTILLATES (PETROLEUM), SOLVENT-DEWAXED HEAVY PARAFFINIC 1
Not to mention their 300V Power 5W-40 "100% Synthetic-EsterCORE Technology" which states
LUBRICATING OILS (PETROLEUM), C20-50, HYDROTREATED NEUTRAL OIL-BASED 10 DISTILLATES (PETROLEUM), SOLVENT-DEWAXED HEAVY PARAFFINIC 1
I think MOTUL defines Grp III as synthetic today and their 100% EsterCoreTM is a blend of Grp III and V.


For ease of comparison
 
Originally Posted By: DeepFriar
What makes an "ester based" oil ester based?

That's the ultimate question. I don't think even what we consider "real" ester oils, including Red Line, have a majority ester base stock. So, yes, we need a formulator in this thread for sure. And you're right about check an MSDS. It is a bit of a shot in the dark. From an enforcement standpoint, no one cars. A spill of PYB is the same thing from an environmental and safety standard as is Red Line. No one's going to ever write a single ticket if they make every MSDS say Group II, even, for every oil in North America.
 
Originally Posted By: SR5

I'm not very good at reading these MSDS and knowing what it all means. But for comparison here is one from Penrite 10-Tenths Racing line of oils which are 100% PAO and Ester. This is from the 20W60.


Originally Posted By: SR5
1-Dodecene, trimer, hydrogenated; CAS# 151006-62-1; 30%-40%


That's PAO.
http://www.cpchem.com/en-us/ehs/Documents/PAO 4-9 PSS final 16Jan2014.pdf

Originally Posted By: SR5
1-Octene, homopolymer, hydrogenated; CAS# 70693-43-5; 20%-25%


This is mPAO.
http://www.cpchem.com/en-us/ehs/Documents/mPAO SYNFLUID PSS FINAL 5-9-2013.pdf

Originally Posted By: SR5
1-Propene, polymer with ethene; CAS# 9010-79-1; div>


This sounds like it is VII, based on the description here:
http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/aldrich/429139?lang=en&region=US

and here:
https://www.exxonmobilchemical.com/Chem-English/Files/Resources/vistalon-product-safety-summary.pdf

Originally Posted By: Mobil
VISTALON RUBBER is characterized as a high-quality ethylene elastomer. The major components are ethylene
(E), propylene (P) and/or ethylidenenorbornene (ENB) or vinylnorbornene (VNB). Some grades are extended
with oil.




Originally Posted By: SR5
The 5W30 is (larger amounts)
1-Dodecene, trimer, hydrogenated; CAS# 151006-62-1; 50%-60%


PAO
Originally Posted By: SR5
1-Propene, polymer with ethene; CAS# 9010--79-1; div>


VII.


Originally Posted By: SR5
The 10W40 (larger amounts)
Mixture of 1-Decene, tetramer mixed with 1-decene trimer, hydrogenated & 1-Decene, homopolymer, hydrogenated; CAS# 68649-12-7/68037-01-4; >60%

PAO

Originally Posted By: SR5
1-Propene, polymer with ethene; CAS# 9010--79-1; 10%-30%


VII.
 
Hi OVERKILL,

Thanks very much for that. What you said makes sense.

Yeah I thought the 1-Propene, polymer with ethene was most likely the VII.

Yes, the 1-Dodecene, trimer, hydrogenated as PAO makes sense too.

I can't really see the Ester, I suspect it's hiding in the Complex mixture of additives, 10%-30%.

Thanks again for your help, much appreciated.
 
Thanks from me too. Very helpful. I'm stumbling through your reference stuff and the information there is terrific. Much of it is over my head but it's adding to my understanding a little at a time. What would be some of the key name identifiers, when they can be found, for some of the expected esters? Or do they vary so much due to the different possible processes used to make/mix them that there are not "typical" ones?
 
Originally Posted By: DeepFriar
Thanks from me too. Very helpful. I'm stumbling through your reference stuff and the information there is terrific. Much of it is over my head but it's adding to my understanding a little at a time. What would be some of the key name identifiers, when they can be found, for some of the expected esters? Or do they vary so much due to the different possible processes used to make/mix them that there are not "typical" ones?


Esters may not be a hazard and so may not be listed in an MSDS.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: DeepFriar
What would be some of the key name identifiers, when they can be found, for some of the expected esters? Or do they vary so much due to the different possible processes used to make/mix them that there are not "typical" ones?


Esters may not be a hazard and so may not be listed in an MSDS.


I had noticed that also - "when they can be found". Apparently many of them are highly biodegradeable as well so material safety is already quite high and therefore easy not to list on an MSDS.

SR5 - Much appreciated. Will read.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: SR5
An article about esters in lubrication, if it is of any interest.

http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/29703/synthetic-esters-perform



After reading that article it is apparent why the ester based oils are so expensive. While the finished product works wonderfully in needed applications there is a lot of precion engineering and process control required to make it work at all! Build it wrong, cook it wrong, blend it wrong - just a little - and you would have a destructive mess on your hands. The extra steps needed add to the expense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
What oil for PD injected TDI
Replies
18
Views
1K
Kesa32
R
Searching for a single oil to run in three cars spanning 33 years of age…
2 3
Replies
57
Views
3K
Tifosi
F
Choosing Oil Weight Based on Actual Engine Temps
Replies
12
Views
2K
weaponoffreedom
jellyfish
Redline 0W-30 / 10000km Oil Lift on 2.7liter Land Cruiser Prado
Replies
17
Views
2K
fantastic
Tals975
Best performing oil for track use - Camaro SS
Replies
18
Views
2K
Snagglefoot
Back
Top