Do people really use Non Detergent oil?....They do around here!

[haley10]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ekpolk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by seotaji:
i wonder how a newer engine would run after using SA it's whole life.

---

Of course, that begs the question of just how long that "whole life" really will be. . .

---

A friend of mine destroyed an expensive Garden Tiller by running ND in it. He likes to save money.

Some think lawn and garden equipment doesn't need an oil with a good additive pak; very wrong.

I only use sraight weights (HD) in lawn and garden equipment. Can't think of any application for a monograde and especially a ND in an internal combustion engine for a car or truck.

Even in warm climates, a monograde may cause more start-up wear.

 

[Audi Junkie]

I doubt of the volume of ND oil sales that people reported can all be accounted for by engine builders using it to run-in a set of cams.

 

[KW]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Audi Junkie:
I doubt of the volume of ND oil sales that people reported can all be accounted for by engine builders using it to run-in a set of cams.

---

I never said that. I said I have used it, then I was questioned why I used it.

Don't take everything I type out of context. I have no idea why it is sold other than maybe for compressers.

 

[Audi Junkie]

I didn't mean anything by it. Just joking that 99.9% of people are putting it into engines that it does not belong. How could I possibly be mean to another Forum member?

 

[Bror Jace]

Guys, as a housekeeping suggestion, you will be able to find other threads on this subject if you search this forum using the word “nondetergent” and variations thereof. We’ve had lots of threads on this ... including a relatively recent one in the Lawn & Garden section.

Now, my take is that there are two types of folks who use ND oils these days: the ignorant and the old timers.

Ever notice there are people who tend to spend a LOT of money in “convenience” stores? Well, I am proud to say that I buy next to nothing in these types of stores. Regardless of the product in question, selection is limited and prices are inflated. So, the people buying a great deal of items in these establishments are regularly making very poor purchasing decisions (unless you are determined to help out a friend and/or local business).

So, it does not surprise me that these stores can sell inferior oils at $2 per quart. They get away with this because their clientele are the best examples of non-thinkers our society produces. They are members of citizenry who make the least of their often modest income.

As for the old timers buying this stuff for their 3-year old lawn mower, check out this thread in the Lawn & Garden section:

http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=14;t=000303

Yes, for certain applications such as pumps and/or compressors, ND oils are still required for the reasons cited by Ken2 and like XS650 said, I think the smaller batches/volumes involved accounts for the fact that they are often even more money than internal combustion oils with a proper add pack.

As for the It still irks me when I see people insist that their lawn mower needs a non-detergent motor oil. I simply inform them, in a level and even tone, that they are completely incorrect and they need to refer back to their owners manual for the proper type of oil. Then I walk away before they can begin to argue. Nope, I haven’t hit anyone yet ... but it’s not because I haven’t wanted to.

So why are these inferior oils still sold? Because ignorant and misinformed people still buy them and there’s lots of money to be made pandering to these folk’s stupidity.

I believe there was some legislation proposed recently (in California?) which was going to restrict the sale of these oils and/or make sure the bottles had massive warning labels on them because people are using this stuff in late model cars and trucks. There is a thread on this here too.

idoxash, I suppose you could try and blend your own antique car mix by adding a AW/EP product to ND oils but I would instead see if you could get Amalie SB grade oils. Google-search for their website and see if there’s a dealer in your region. It might not be easy to be 100% certain if your additives are indeed detergent-free.

--- Bror Jace

 

[1 FMF]

you think a $1.19 for non-detergent SA/SB oil is bad, wait till someone decides to throw the word "synthetic" on the label. It'll be priced alongside Mobil and other synthetics at $5/qt ... for premium SA grade synthetic non-detergent oil, with emphasis on "non-detergent" to give the impression as being better than the standard detergent motor oils that are everywhere

Like the definition of "synthetic" for oil, what's the real definition of detergent in context of motor oil? We here usually talk of detergents separately, such as from anti-wear agents, pour-point depressants, antioxidants, etc. But this is for modern oils, monogrades or multi-viscosity with API ratings typically SF or later. Back in pre-70's for API SA/SB oil, what did the term non-detergent back then mean? And when you think about it, the term non-detergent could not have come about back then until oils started to be formulated "with detergents". Why would you call an oil non-detergent when no detergent oil existed?

 

[1 FMF]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kestas:
I thought one reason to use non-detergent oil was that it didn't foam as much as detergent oil, and that's why it's more desirable to use in lawn mowers. Can anybody confirm or deny this?

---

I think I can confirm that it's a myth and is wrong. From my last post, we really have to define what detergent means at this point in time. But I think in general, we can safely say oils rated SA/SB oils are non-detergent oils, and those rated SF and later are detergent oils. I don't have access to API specs, but I think you can safely assume from common sense that the SA/SB oils formulated back in the 60's and earlier did not have all the good additives today such as anti-foamants, anti-oxidants, VII, and anti-wears. That said, in a gasoline engine there is blowby contaminants from combustion (NOx) and fuel wash into the oil along with water (vapor or condensation) from various sources. This turns the oil acidic and will pit or etch the metal resulting in bearing failure and/or decreased piston ring sealing; it are the "detergents" in the oil such as calcium, zinc, magnesium, and others which combat this affect and allows the oil to remain in service. Not to mention the effects of the other additives which keep the oil from foaming, allow it to flow at colder temeratures and maintain viscosity at higher temperatures, stay stable and not break down at higher temperatures, and also provide anti-wear properties when lubrication by the base oil reaches it's limits, and reduced friction.

It's also my understanding, to answer your initial question, that what keeps an oil from foaming are the additives in it, not lack of. We always attribute the low amount of silicon that usually shows up in UOA's are from the anti-foaming additive in the oil, right?

One of the main reasons I think SA/SB oils have no place in modern engines, other than combatting the acidic effects from combustion byproducts which an SA/SB oil cannot do, is todays engines run much hotter (for efficiency and economy) and also put out a tremendous amount of power per displacement versus engines of the 1930-50 which ran SA/SB oil. This requires more from the oil, especially in terms of antiwear, since bearings are smaller and tighter and are handling much higher loads. There's things like high ramp camshafts with high valve spring pressures. Additives such as ZDDP (zinc) are what keep these wear points from happening at a much increased rate are they not? And isn't that why camshaft makers, maybe compcams or crane, specifically state to use oils with high ZDDP on specific cams they sell? And isn't that also the primary purpose of GM's EOS (Engine oil supplement) ?

All that said, I can't see why anyone with any knowledge about oil and lubrication (which is 95% of the people here) are asking about using non-detergent (non-additive) oils in engines, every day we talk about oils here and compare additive packages and try to intelligently determine which oils are best

But on the other hand, if you're thinking base oil might be relevant, then I would say the SA/SB oils are probably not going to be any better than a group I base, especially for $0.99/qt and I don't think the technology was around back then to produce hydrocracked group III oil or group IV or V (esters)? Certainly not in the 1930's which is the timeframe the SA/SB oil is always referenced to. When did the jet engine come about? I doubt ester-based (synthetic) oils were on store shelves labeled API SA/SB for automobile use either.

 

[XS650]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 1 FMF:
Certainly not in the 1930's which is the timeframe the SA/SB oil is always referenced to. When did the jet engine come about? I doubt ester-based (synthetic) oils were on store shelves labeled API SA/SB for automobile use either.

---

Jet engines were first seriously used in WWII by the Germans. Brit and US use came very shortly after WWII.

I think your points on detergent oils are right except for some nit-picks about the dates.

S* years According to API
API ref chart

SA not to be used in cars made after 1930
SB not to be used in cars made after 1963
SC not to be used in cars made after 1967

I seem to recall SB being called a detergent oil and the old gummers saying it was evil, they would only use non-detergent oil like God intended. Maybe that's just my old gummer selective memory.

 

[1 FMF]

quote:

---

Originally posted by XS650:
I seem to recall SB being called a detergent oil and the old gummers saying it was evil, they would only use non-detergent oil like God intended. Maybe that's just my old gummer selective memory.

---

might have some merrit, for the same reasons some refrain from high spread multi-viscosity oils like 10w-40 today. Additives in it, viscosity index improvers I believe, were prone to breaking down or shearing, leaving deposits and causing problems. Not so much I think in 2005 as in 1990. There's a big technological difference over this time span even. But back in the 1960's and earlier, I'm sure their additives were orders of magnitude inferior compared to today's, and because additive technology was brand new problems were common. So from their point of view I could understand favoring non-detergent oils over detergent oils, when they're experiencing problems firsthand using SB or "detergent formulated" oils. And from there the non-detergent oil legend persisted, gearheads are funny like that (not saying you) by referencing opinion and folklore of how it used to be done opposed to the relevant facts of the time.