I aint seen anything like that since superbowl 27
Deposits and Base Oils/Additives
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
- Status
I aint seen anything like that since superbowl 27
Not generalizing turbines at all. We have steam turbines (GE, ABB, Alstom, Hitachi,...), frame gas turbines (GE, Siemens), and "jets" (GE, Pratt & Whitney) in our fleet. Don't claim to understand them all and the details of each. Some use different oils for the gas compared to the steam, and some use different oils in the control system compared to the lube oil system. Further some segregate the turbine system from the generator, for good reasons I will not bore you with. But take the Pratt FT-8's that we have, and we have a choice of one qualifed oil. High priced exotic synthetic, but cokes badly. Unless we qualify another oil at great expense we are stuck with it.
I'm not really interested in getting into all the different oils for turbines, but was just making the point that there are some advantages in some situations to the Group I oils. Not saying it is a godsend in every situation. If you go back to Buster's original post, I would suggest he has been given very good advice from an oil company, and he is desperately trying to find a way to discredit it.
The simple facts are that with internal combustion engine oils there are limits to what oil can do, and specifically in this case keep in solution/suspension, and why you would want to do it.
There are a lot of advantages to frequent oil changes compared to the BITOG groupthink of extended OCI's. Why on earth do you want to suspend all that crud in the oil and keep circulating it round and round in your engine, when it is cheaper to use a good Group II or III and dump it earlier for the same cost (without even including all those costly used oil analysis). Similarily why do you want to use an "oil" that is 25% additives, when there are ones that have less additive, more oil, and will last the normal OCI quite easily.
You can hang out the toll sign if you like (I may even be flattered), but really my only purpose is to present another point of view here that those with an open mind may want to consider.
I read Buster's objection as coming from the fact that you can't leap from saying Group-I oils have one advantage (solubility) to the conclusion that Group-I lube oils are superior to others (however you define "superior", "better", or whatever).
My used oil analysis with particle counts simply do not bear out your fear of running around with lots of suspended crud that a short change would cure. The objective evidence I've collected indicates that in a healthy clean engine, with proper filtration, this is simply a fictional fear, nothing more. The longest OCIs I've run with UOA, roughly 7k and 10k miles (both results posted here at BITOG) resulted in ultra-clean fluid readings. Pardon the slightly crass comparison, but I could choose to run to the bathroom and relieve myself every 15 minutes, there'd be no harm in doing so, other than the wasted time, but it wouldn't do anything positive for me either. In like fashion, my used oil analysis have clearly shown that I'd obtain no advantage in changing oil at shorter intervals.
Why would I care whether a finished lube product is x% or y% additives (at least as to auto lubes, they're ALL bad without their add packs)? If it's used within its parameters, I get the results I want -- a clean healthy engine.
Please feel free to post alternate points of view. But of course, you should come into the exchange with as open a mind as you expect others to have. What we've seen from you so far is dogged unwillingness to accept information that's not consistent with your chosen opinion. You may want to consider opening your mind some. . .
I hear what you say, but consider that the ISO particle count scale is adjusted for IC engines, because they run so dirty.
http://www.blackstone-labs.com/all_about_particle_counts.html
I've seen some even question the value of doing ISO particle counts on diesel engines because they are so dirty that the results are meaningless. They argue that the particles may be there but are not harmful.
I just think when you consider all things:
VII breaking down
Oxidation taking place
TBN number decreasing
ZDDP reducing (and it starts lower now with SM)
& dirt/sludge growing...
why push the limits? The $ saved by not doing UOA tests lets you change the oil sooner, get rid of the suspended sludge and dirt, and get a clean filter in there.
http://www.blackstone-labs.com/all_about_particle_counts.html
I've seen some even question the value of doing ISO particle counts on diesel engines because they are so dirty that the results are meaningless. They argue that the particles may be there but are not harmful.
I just think when you consider all things:
VII breaking down
Oxidation taking place
TBN number decreasing
ZDDP reducing (and it starts lower now with SM)
& dirt/sludge growing...
why push the limits? The $ saved by not doing UOA tests lets you change the oil sooner, get rid of the suspended sludge and dirt, and get a clean filter in there.
GIII,IV and V base stocks have less/no volitle componets in them. The oils make up is more uniform then a GI could ever hope to be. The more volitile componets that make up a quart of oil the more deposits you will have. To add insult to injury a lot of synthetics oils have more robust additive package then their conventional oil counter parts. WHen you take into account the higher flash points and better cold cranking numbers and flow rateing it is easy to see how the better the base stock the cleaner the engine will likely be. It would be hard to imagine a company spending big bucks to make an oil that is mostly easter based then giveing it a weak additive package.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Sticky
- Locked
- Sticky