GF-4 and base oils explained

[widman]

Here is a simple explanation of where the old and new base oils are going for the formulations of newer oils.
http://www.chevron.com/prodserv/BaseOils/gf4_faq.shtml

 

[Motorbike]

Well it looks like the new GF-4 oils will be the best dino's yet if we find out who's formulating with what basestocks . That phos cap was overall a larger amount allowed than I thought it was going to be .

While it is possible to blend GF-4 10W-30 using mostly Group I base stock meeting spec will require more expensive correction fluids and more expensive additive packages. Factoring in the added cost of correction fluids, additives and increased blending complexity total formulating costs is comparable between Group I and Group II base oils

I believe we are seeing this right now with some of the GF-3 oils and their additive packs . I think very few are actually using group II only at this time .

[ March 24, 2004, 07:36 AM: Message edited by: Motorbike ]

 

[ssmokn]

I work with a guy that uses SuperTech oil and SuperTech or Fram filters at 3K intervals. I know he has 175K+ on two of the vehicles. One is a Chrysler van and the other is a Honda car (don't know what model).

 

[novadude]

quote:

---

Therefore finished lubricants formulated with Group I base oils formulations require boosted additive packages to achieve similar performance to engine oils blended with Group II.

---

This explains why we should not get TOO excited when we see high levels of calcium, zinc, etc. Maybe a great additive package is needed for inferior basestocks, while a high quality base can show great performance with a mediocre add pack? (We have seen this in UOAs)

 

[Motorbike]

quote:

---

Originally posted by novadude:

quote:

---

Therefore finished lubricants formulated with Group I base oils formulations require boosted additive packages to achieve similar performance to engine oils blended with Group II.

---

This explains why we should not get TOO excited when we see high levels of calcium, zinc, etc. Maybe a great additive package is needed for inferior basestocks, while a high quality base can show great performance with a mediocre add pack? (We have seen this in UOAs)

---

Yep , that was more or less what I was saying .

Look at the additive levels of the Citgo and Pennzoil oils vs Motorcraft as but one example of a possible answer to this .

There is a new moly available called Molybdate , it's a Diol Diester Molybdate that has no sulfur in it " compared to the Dithiocarbamate " and exhibits good hydrolytic's in formulations . They have been testing it with 700ppm of Mo and 600 ppm phos and it was determined after testing similating use in an engine it had a better coefficient of friction than the Dithio type Moly .

I'd sure like to know who will be using this newer Esterfied Moly in GF-4 formulations

[ March 24, 2004, 09:44 AM: Message edited by: Motorbike ]

 

[novadude]

That article specifically mentioned Ashland is a big user of Group I. I'm betting Maxlife uses a bunch of group I with a robust additive package, and some esters for seal conditioning.

Just a theory.