Cutting-edge Lubricants

[buster]

Not the most interesting article. What I did find interesting is how they emphasize deviating from OEM.

"Today, the very highest-performance lubricants are a precise and complex formulation of additive, performance polymer, pour point depressant and quality base oil, tailored to the specific requirements of the hardware design team."

"Engine and field testing has demonstrated that even subtle changes to an approved lubricant formulation can have catastrophic implications on the efficiency and protection of the engine during its life. At the same time, any part change can invalidate the formal approval of the finished lubricant. "

Cutting edge Lubricants

In the continued drive toward lower emissions and more fuel-efficient powertrains, the precise formulation of advanced engine lubricants has never been more critical.

360.lubrizol.com

 

[JHZR2]

Interesting quote. Says essentially to not use additives because it will offset the balance. My interpretation...

I get efficiency.... if someone adds some heavy slop into a 0w-16, of course it would theoretically affect efficiency.

Protection? Not sure how that statement can be globally made...

 

[samven]

I know in the world of DFI and high HP Turbos this is becoming more of an issue but I believe it is disservice to the consumer to make engines so sensitive to exact spec oils that any deviation leads to shorter life and poor performance. I know the old adage Just follow the Manufacturers recommendations. But car makers dont make this easy with long complicated spec numbers that are difficult to find on each container of oil on top of which 90% of end users dont have a clue beyond the SAE SN SP ratings.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

Here's what they are not saying
( This comes strictly from watching the changes in industrial equipment and tribology needs over the decades- there is zero doubt in my mind its exactly the same in the automotive industry)

"Back in the day" it was common practice to build things with 100% strength factor on the design and materials did not have the cost they do today so combined they affected the end product as more of a middle capability widget. ( when overhauling an engine and balancing/blueprinting was half science, half art). It was normal for industrial gear drives to almost last forever.

Fast forward.

Now the goal is to use lesser materials ( "designed for purpose" with a minimum of additional strength) and closer tolerances to save weight, increase power in a given footprint and so forth.

That's just the way it is. I have one gearbox manufacturer who quit making a specific box because it could no longer be made competitively while maintaining the original design life and power.. The clones from other manufacturers weigh almost 100 lbs less ( sacrificed metallurgy) and have a different service factor.

All that to say this

When those things happen, this radically changes the entire tribological design theory and now lubricants have to do things that a decade ago probably were not even thought about. That's really the driver behind all this.

Personally, in my experience, this is a double edge sword. For machines that are "light duty" ( define that as you wish) then there will likely be a benefit ( maybe not in performance because as "light duty" its not being physically taxed per se but possibly financially on the front end)

For machines that are "heavy duty" that's a different story. On specifically gear boxes I am seeing much higher failures in gears and shafting with metallurgical analysis and FEA study showing deflections from parts and housings that never used to be there. ( indicating material and/or lubrication inadequacy)

Granted that's totally anecdotal and just one firm's experiences but my peers are telling me they are experiencing similar observations.

I don't doubt for one second vehicle manufacturing is in the same boat for the same reason and if true then "lubrication as both a commodity and a science/technology is going to skyrocket in importance and have to drive improvement of there will be a hard ceiling on performance of "new" equipment.

I have a lot of failures now stating "inadequate lubrication" ( not meaning the oil was low or even degraded by OA but there was not enough of a specific quality to protect the component under its usage in the field)

 

[ragtoplvr]

Designing a engine that can not be serviced by the carbon based life forms at the local quick lube using what ever bulk oil and $1.00 "jobber" filter special of the day they get from their third world supplier they get is not wise.

Rod

 

[benjy]

its SURELY all about $$$$$$. typical cars + light trucks are POCKET CHANGE compared to industrial stuff!! i can see efficiency is important BUT not at the expense of longevity!!! as long as manufacturers products last as long as the warranty + its your $$$ doing the repairs they prolly care LESS + even LIKE it as repairs are profits as good as or better than the original sale witnessed by todays HIGH cost of repair-replacement parts!!

 

[JDenyer232]

Here's what they are not saying
( This comes strictly from watching the changes in industrial equipment and tribology needs over the decades- there is zero doubt in my mind its exactly the same in the automotive industry)

"Back in the day" it was common practice to build things with 100% strength factor on the design and materials did not have the cost they do today so combined they affected the end product as more of a middle capability widget. ( when overhauling an engine and balancing/blueprinting was half science, half art). It was normal for industrial gear drives to almost last forever.

Fast forward.

Now the goal is to use lesser materials ( "designed for purpose" with a minimum of additional strength) and closer tolerances to save weight, increase power in a given footprint and so forth.

That's just the way it is. I have one gearbox manufacturer who quit making a specific box because it could no longer be made competitively while maintaining the original design life and power.. The clones from other manufacturers weigh almost 100 lbs less ( sacrificed metallurgy) and have a different service factor.

All that to say this

When those things happen, this radically changes the entire tribological design theory and now lubricants have to do things that a decade ago probably were not even thought about. That's really the driver behind all this.

Personally, in my experience, this is a double edge sword. For machines that are "light duty" ( define that as you wish) then there will likely be a benefit ( maybe not in performance because as "light duty" its not being physically taxed per se but possibly financially on the front end)

For machines that are "heavy duty" that's a different story. On specifically gear boxes I am seeing much higher failures in gears and shafting with metallurgical analysis and FEA study showing deflections from parts and housings that never used to be there. ( indicating material and/or lubrication inadequacy)

Granted that's totally anecdotal and just one firm's experiences but my peers are telling me they are experiencing similar observations.

I don't doubt for one second vehicle manufacturing is in the same boat for the same reason and if true then "lubrication as both a commodity and a science/technology is going to skyrocket in importance and have to drive improvement of there will be a hard ceiling on performance of "new" equipment.

I have a lot of failures now stating "inadequate lubrication" ( not meaning the oil was low or even degraded by OA but there was not enough of a specific quality to protect the component under its usage in the field)

I see a lot of the same in my world as a machinist. I have seen a lot of ball screw and nut failures on large cnc machines, usually the result of improperly hardened ball screws. Everyone is trying to cut costs to drive profits but the consumer is usually the one to pay the price.