Group I better than Group IV??

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ron AKA

Thread starter
Joined
Aug 9, 2006
Messages
637
Location
Alberta, Canada
Quote:
Ron more thoughts, In a on line OLD system using GPI with good bypass filtration (running at close to staturated "sludge" leval) I think over time or with a partial change to GPII the new oil will rasie the aniline point and knock out varnish and sludge. Otherwise as in a IC engine ANY oil run past its usefull life will varnish and sludge up. bruce So of a change is made to a "better" GPII oil the whole system should be chnaged out or a outside "filteration" company comes in a runs a full 100% cleaning of the whole system.
Thanks Bruce. It is a complicated subject. There are some reports of top ups with Group II to Group I's can make it real bad. I think we will end up trying a bypass filtration system with cellulose filter elements. There seems to be some evidence they can reduce the varnish potential in existing oils. This will be cheaper than replacing the oil, if it works. One other plant has reported good sucess with it. Here is a bit of information on one company that does this. http://www.klassenhydraulics.com/industries/pwrgen/CJC_GE%20GT%20Presentation.pdf
 
Joined
Dec 6, 2003
Messages
7,402
Location
Austin, TX
Quote:
Quote:
I was under the impression this section was for "Car and Truck Gas Engine Oil", not stationary turbine oil.
If I were to use group I in my saab, it'd probably become stationary pretty quickly. Does that count?
Not sure, but I wish it would put a stop to the flame bait.
 
Joined
Jul 17, 2006
Messages
613
Location
SW Michigan, near Fennville
Quote:
Why even bother refining the stuff at all? Just use crude oil straight out of the ground. TS
Don't forget the strain it though a kitchen strainer first and get out the clods of dirt. Let the filters do the rest! LOL
 
Joined
Aug 20, 2003
Messages
18,922
Location
NE,Ohio
Quote:
Can a Mod move this to the correct forum.. this isnt a car or truck engine oil
Heavy and Industrial Lubrication Heavy Equip. and Industrial Oils still no edit button?
 

Ron AKA

Thread starter
Joined
Aug 9, 2006
Messages
637
Location
Alberta, Canada
Quote:
And the title is deceptive as well. We're not comparing Group I to Group IV. We're comparing Group I to Group II...
Yes actually I was. The Group I has the highest solubility for additives and sludge of all four groups. The point is that a higher group oil is not necessarily better in all aspects. And, if you slip in 5,000K now and then with a Group I or II, it may keep your engine cleaner.
 

Ron AKA

Thread starter
Joined
Aug 9, 2006
Messages
637
Location
Alberta, Canada
Quote:
Engine, or industrial turbine? 'Cause i change the oil on my turbine every 30-years or 60,000 hrs. Whether is needs it or not!:)
Actual the syntetics in gas turbines have varnish problems also.
 
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Messages
6,156
Location
Buffalo, NY
Then I guess I need to stop using my Petro-Canada synthetic in my turbine and find some Citgo! Oh, that devil Hugo Chavez! I can't use Citgo! Alas! What Group I can I use in my industrial turbine?
 

Ron AKA

Thread starter
Joined
Aug 9, 2006
Messages
637
Location
Alberta, Canada
If varnish and sludge is not a problem with modern auto oils, why are there products out there like Auto-RX? Now Auto-RX has all the signs of a snake oil product when you look at their website, it does have an interesting application process to use their product (which appears to be related to lard - "Fatty acids"). If you follow the step by step process at this link below, you end up running two short OCI's using non-synthetic (read Group I or II) oil. Makes me wonder if you could not achieve the same thing by just running a couple of short OCI's using a high detergent Group I oil, and save yourself the $25 for the Auto-RX, and also the savings from using a low cost Group I oil? In other words the real value is in the higher solvency oils, and the Auto-RX is really there just to give you that "I spend extra $$'s so it must be good feeling". For me, I would feel a lot better putting an API rated oil in to clean my engine instead of a fatty acid lard. http://www.auto-rx.com/pages/applications2.htm
 
Joined
Dec 6, 2003
Messages
7,402
Location
Austin, TX
Quote:
If varnish and sludge is not a problem with modern auto oils, why are there products out there like Auto-RX?
It's for people who use substandard Group I-III based oils and/or over extend the OCI.
 
Joined
May 23, 2004
Messages
2,585
Location
Northeast
Let's also not forget that motor oils haven't always been as good as they are today.. A lot of people use auto-rx on their older vehicles.. To remove all the crud left from earlier motor oils which weren't as good as what we have now.. I guess it depends on your definition of "modern".
 
Joined
Nov 7, 2004
Messages
2,493
Location
MSP 'burbs, MN
Quote:
If varnish and sludge is not a problem with modern auto oils, why are there products out there like Auto-RX? Now Auto-RX has all the signs of a snake oil product when you look at their website, it does have an interesting application process to use their product (which appears to be related to lard - "Fatty acids"). If you follow the step by step process at this link below, you end up running two short OCI's using non-synthetic (read Group I or II) oil. Makes me wonder if you could not achieve the same thing by just running a couple of short OCI's using a high detergent Group I oil, and save yourself the $25 for the Auto-RX, and also the savings from using a low cost Group I oil? In other words the real value is in the higher solvency oils, and the Auto-RX is really there just to give you that "I spend extra $$'s so it must be good feeling". For me, I would feel a lot better putting an API rated oil in to clean my engine instead of a fatty acid lard. http://www.auto-rx.com/pages/applications2.htm
Ron, Do a forum search with the word "Auto-RX" in the "keywords search terms" box, and "Terry" in the "Username search" box. Then change the date range to see older posts and you'll see how highly Terry Dyson regards the unique formulation of Auto-RX and how it does indeed work. Here are a few quotes:
Quote:
NO. There is nothing on the automotive add market that equates to Auto-Rx. Nothing magic, just real chemistry that is unique. Terry
Quote:
The oil analysis will tell us alot about the cleaning capabilities of the Auto-Rx product. Sometimes people do report seeing visible granules of lubricious particles as RX scavanges trash out of the engine and is trapped in the oil filter. Visual indications are dependent on the type of insolubles and other trash the engine has been carrying.
Quote:
Ken2 is right on. I,ll add that esters or any polar add CAN compete with Auto-RX but few have the cleaning power of Auto-RX. Thus for cleaning I am not worried about that affectation. In rejuvinating seals it can be a problem. In consult with MY oil analysis customers who use Syn and RX I have seen NO problems using RX in end of drain cleaning with about any syn oils. Problem is that It can confuse the general reader when they read the conservative advice Auto-RX gives on their website. MOST people who will use Auto-RX WILL NOT use oil analysis interpreted by me thus the broad based and prudent advice by the maker of the product. I want to add that my oil analysis customers are having wonderfully low wear and longer drains (10,000 miles common) using periodic Auto-RX cleanings, lower cost SM conventional oils,and FP60 ever gas fill. With savings over the extra cost of the so called syns marketed. Analysis is what allows this and the fine tuning of the regimen
Quote:
Compared to a Baseline grp II PCMO 5w-30 .Independent evaulations of Auto-Rx saw lower 4 ball wear with Auto-RX used as a AW/AO add and or as a FM add. Lower HFRR wear as a AW/AO or FM add. SRV friction testing was lower with RX as the add in AW/AO and FM adds. HDD oils saw similar effects. Cost of the product as a replacment for current oil add technology was the limiting factor not capability of the chemistry. The fact that it can clean and do it with less wear than NEAT API motor oil says alot. I interpreted data that covered PCMO 5w-30, 5w-20, and 15w-40 HDD oils. Pablo, it does not "seperate" or anything not "pretty". I have seen testing of Auto-RX as a cleaner in various dosages and as mentioned above as a replacement for current AW/AO and FM oil adds. Cost was the only limiting factor. Only until the conventional ZDDP add packs are not allowed, will cutting edge ester chemistries become cost effective. Think of the ability to use RX right now an early jump on lubricant add technology.
Quote:
I hammer every product I test until I can't find any more weakness to ID, I only talk about the good ones here. I like auto-rx and have studied more of the proprietary test data in depth than Frank ever did since he hired me to work with the DOD,Major oil add companies, Nascar engine builders/Icons and others that tested it on their own. You just can't imagine that I might really believe in what a cutting edge chemistry it is, can you ? Salesman and marketing wonks are the hardest to convince since they think you are selling them.
Quote:
Use oil analysis and you can "see" the wear reduction, cleaning of insolubles, reduced solids, increased oxidation ( cleaning phase), and reduced nitration as combustion efficiency increases. Volatility stability in flash, and vis decrease.
 

Ron AKA

Thread starter
Joined
Aug 9, 2006
Messages
637
Location
Alberta, Canada
It's just still bothering me why Auto-RX is specifying no synthetics for two oil changes. Perhaps the only way to test it would be to do two oil changes with group I oil and a $25 placebo for the driver, and see how that compares to an Auto-RX clean.
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2003
Messages
848
Location
Ohio
Quote:
It's just still bothering me why Auto-RX is specifying no synthetics for two oil changes. Perhaps the only way to test it would be to do two oil changes with group I oil and a $25 placebo for the driver, and see how that compares to an Auto-RX clean.
I noted that Auto RX says not to use syn oils as they bind with it then their own reference link to consumer reports states that syn oils keep sludge down. Snake oil ? MAYBE ?
 
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Messages
6,156
Location
Buffalo, NY
Quote:
If varnish and sludge is not a problem with modern auto oils, why are there products out there like Auto-RX? Now Auto-RX has all the signs of a snake oil product when you look at their website, it does have an interesting application process to use their product (which appears to be related to lard - "Fatty acids"). If you follow the step by step process at this link below, you end up running two short OCI's using non-synthetic (read Group I or II) oil. Makes me wonder if you could not achieve the same thing by just running a couple of short OCI's using a high detergent Group I oil, and save yourself the $25 for the Auto-RX, and also the savings from using a low cost Group I oil? In other words the real value is in the higher solvency oils, and the Auto-RX is really there just to give you that "I spend extra $$'s so it must be good feeling". For me, I would feel a lot better putting an API rated oil in to clean my engine instead of a fatty acid lard. http://www.auto-rx.com/pages/applications2.htm
Oh, okay then! And I thought you had an agenda with this thread or something. BTW, did the Group I oils used in the 1970s guarantee cleaner engines?
 

Ron AKA

Thread starter
Joined
Aug 9, 2006
Messages
637
Location
Alberta, Canada
My father owned a GM garage in the 60's. I saw some of those engines apart, and can speak from some fading memories. The ones that were smart enough to use the latest spec detergent oils looked pretty good. The old school guys that thought a clean oil meant a clean engine and ran non detergent oil had very dirty engines - but clean oil! The mechanics used to compare the oils used and what the engines looked like, and get a good laugh. Was good for business though. The biggest improvements in the last 40 years in engine oils has been better viscosity index and VII's that stay the course, and as a result lower viscosity oils during start-up conditions. Synthetics have been a large part of that. And they can be more preventative when it comes to avoiding oxidation, but if it does occur then they have more trouble keeping it dissolved. Then there is the theory that super fine filters are the cause of varnish and sludge. So a synthetic may not be breaking down due to heat and oxidation, but due to some well meaning owner installing a super fine filter.
 
Joined
Nov 15, 2002
Messages
8,937
Location
SC
Quote:
It's just still bothering me why Auto-RX is specifying no synthetics for two oil changes. Perhaps the only way to test it would be to do two oil changes with group I oil and a $25 placebo for the driver, and see how that compares to an Auto-RX clean.
It is well-documented why Frank says not to use synthetic oil with Auto-RX. The natural esters in Auto-RX are polar just like the synthetic esters in synthetic motor oil. If used with a syn, the Auto-RX has to "fight with" the polar molecules in the syn oil in a "battle of attraction" to the metal surfaces. As Frank has stated, Auto-RX will eventually win the battle, but it will take longer than if Auto-RX is the only polar molecule in the mix.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top