GF-5 R.T. Vanderbilt

[buster]

Quote:
Author’s Note
After reviewing the key formulation challenges expected with ILSAC GF-5, it is interesting to note
that the use of organo-molybdenum compounds is a recurring theme, as they are beneficial for
fuel economy, wear control, deposit control, oxidation control, and dispersancy retention. For
companies that manufacture and market molybdenum and organo-molybdenum compounds,
ILSAC GF-5 is indeed better late than never.


Quote:

Fuel Economy and Friction Modifiers
A formulator may choose to increase the friction modifier level in order to achieve the required fuel
economy increase in the Sequence VID engine test. Many friction modifiers are antagonistic
towards Cu/Pb bearing corrosion in the Sequence VIII engine test33. Certain organic, vegetable
oil-derived friction modifiers are aggressive towards lead34. This effect will be exacerbated in GF-5
if ZDDP is lowered from 0.075% to 0.065%, as ZDDP is a good metal protectant and helps to
protect Cu/Pb bearings from corrosion. In this case, other additives can be used to passivate the
Cu/Pb surface35,36. Certain molybdenum friction modifiers can also be corrosive but, unlike
organic friction modifiers, molybdenum compounds also bring strong oxidation, wear and deposit
control benefits to the formulation37


http://www.rtvanderbilt.com/ILSAC GF-5 Development.pdf

 

[buster]

Quote:
Certain molybdenum friction modifiers can also be corrosive


I've always wondered if RL's chemistry is a bit corrosive to Cu hence the higher numbers we seen in used oil analysis. Same with Fe in M1. It's not a metal/metal wear but a chemical wear.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: buster
Quote:
Certain molybdenum friction modifiers can also be corrosive


I've always wondered if RL's chemistry is a bit corrosive to Cu hence the higher numbers we seen in used oil analysis. Same with Fe in M1. It's not a metal/metal wear but a chemical wear.


Interesting theory buster..... Of course getting any factual evidence from the manufacturer's would likely be impossible.....

 

[MolaKule]

Quote:
This means using less ZDDP and shifting from mostly
short chain, secondary ZDDP to more long chain, primary ZDDP. It is well known that short chain, secondary ZDDPs are more active as anti-wear compounds than long chain, primary ZDDPs in gasoline engines. By reducing the total ZDDP and shifting to a less active type, one would expect that the oil’s anti-wear performance will be compromised. This can be compensated
for by the use of supplemental anti-wear additives which do not contain phosphorus.

Molybdenum and boron compounds are good examples....


OK, so we go from lowered levels of short-chain ZDDP to boron and moly, suggested by MWA! on this very site a number of years ago.

C'mon guys, how many times have we explained that Moly DTC's (Dithiocarbamates) have NOT been the culprit but it has been the phosphorthioates.

 

[MolaKule]

Please read this:

http://www.rtvanderbilt.com/petro/p981.pdf

For PCMO's, you might use MOLYVAN A or MOLYVAN 807, 822, 855, or 856B but not use MOLYVAN L since MOLYVAN L is a Phosphordithioate.

Apparently you also forgot a common additive called, "Metal Deactivator or Metal Inhibitor." What do think this additive is used for?

 

[MolaKule]

Quote:
I've always wondered if RL's chemistry is a bit corrosive to Cu hence the higher numbers we seen in used oil analysis. Same with Fe in M1. It's not a metal/metal wear but a chemical wear.


IMHO, making these kinds of statements and inuendos wihtout any factual research to back this up is dispicable.

People not trained in chemistry and tribology will swear this is fact and will now propagate this myth throughout the internet.

 

[buster]

I'll agree that it's not a good idea to say things like that above, when having no factual research to back it up. My comment was in regards to the high Pb/Cu seen in Redline used oil analysis that is often marked as a concern to some labs doing the testing. It's been explained by only the most qualified people on here, which is where basis of that comment came from. This issue repeatedly comes up and often lab's flag it as a concern and when people are shelling out $10qt for an oil, they want to know it's working right. These are risks one takes when using Non API approved oils. Redline is a reputable company and I'm sure it's just the nature of the oil's chemistry as they have claimed. They obviously know about it.

 

[MolaKule]

Theories, Hypotheses, and guesses abound but no one has shown any direct correlation or cause and effect.

SF was testing various PCMO PAO/ester-based formulations with and without moly FM level formulations, and found no wear correlation between the formulations. We also used three different additive supplier's moly DTC, again no correlation.

However, there was a definite correlation between metal deactivators and other additives.

If Dave at Redline is not concerend about the Redline used oil analysis, then neither am I. IMHO, there are NO conspiracies, NO hidden agenda's regarding Redline used oil analysis.

DISCLAIMER: I do not work for or with, nor consult, nor am I otherwise connected to Redline. I have never met or spoken to Dave at Redline.

 

[boxcartommie22]

well put molakule!!!