High V.I. oils, on purpose, or consequence??
- Thread starter dailydriver
- Start date
- Status
MolaKule
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Joe90_guy
Molekule,
I'm guessing you have access to a lab that can measure KV100, CCS & Noack?
If so, can I suggest you make up a blend of conventional PAO 4 & PAO 6 and any VI of choice. Organise the blend to meet some arbitrary KV100 and CCS targets. Measure the NOACK.
Make up a second blend of PAO 4 and any whatever heavy mPAO takes your fancy along with the same VI. Organise the blend to give you exactly the same KV100 and CCS you had before. Measure the NOACK.
I will bet you a penny to a pinch of salt that the NOACK volatility goes up because narrow cut volatility is always lower than a dumb bell blend of equal viscometrics.
PS - might you know a Brit called Dave Gray?
Been there and done that some time ago for a customer right after mPAO's were introduced.
Sorry Joe, I don't know Dave Gray?
In terms of working environment, I think it is important to remark here, that there is a big difference in formulating for a corporate entity verses being an independent formulator.
In a corporate environment you are limited in most cases to what the corp gives you to work with and limited to products they want YOU to develop.
As an independent formulator, you can work with component sources from all over the world and give the blender a wide breadth of choices and products.
Molekule,
I'm guessing you have access to a lab that can measure KV100, CCS & Noack?
If so, can I suggest you make up a blend of conventional PAO 4 & PAO 6 and any VI of choice. Organise the blend to meet some arbitrary KV100 and CCS targets. Measure the NOACK.
Make up a second blend of PAO 4 and any whatever heavy mPAO takes your fancy along with the same VI. Organise the blend to give you exactly the same KV100 and CCS you had before. Measure the NOACK.
I will bet you a penny to a pinch of salt that the NOACK volatility goes up because narrow cut volatility is always lower than a dumb bell blend of equal viscometrics.
PS - might you know a Brit called Dave Gray?
Been there and done that some time ago for a customer right after mPAO's were introduced.
Sorry Joe, I don't know Dave Gray?
In terms of working environment, I think it is important to remark here, that there is a big difference in formulating for a corporate entity verses being an independent formulator.
In a corporate environment you are limited in most cases to what the corp gives you to work with and limited to products they want YOU to develop.
As an independent formulator, you can work with component sources from all over the world and give the blender a wide breadth of choices and products.
Originally Posted By: Joe90_guy
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Good reading on Infineum's SV line of VIIs. They are great additives and improve the oil in many ways:
http://www.infineuminsight.com/insight/jun-2013/satisfying-both-sides-of-the-equation
The first thing you need to understand about Infineum (and Paramins which came before it) is that first, second and third, they are a MARKETING company. I am not saying their juice is particularly bad but every bit of technical blurb they issue comes ready-coated with a thick layer of verbal varnish. It's their job to sell additive so this is to be expected.
My advice is you should not explicitly believe every thing you read and all that glitters is not gold.
That's very true -- you can't really trust a company's praising/marketing of its own product. They seem to be praising their new diblock-polymer VII now over their previous flagship star-polymer VII.
http://www.infineuminsight.com/insight/aug-2015/next-generation-viscosity-modifiers
The company is coowned by ExxonMobil and Shell. Don't underestimate their research efforts and skills.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Good reading on Infineum's SV line of VIIs. They are great additives and improve the oil in many ways:
http://www.infineuminsight.com/insight/jun-2013/satisfying-both-sides-of-the-equation
The first thing you need to understand about Infineum (and Paramins which came before it) is that first, second and third, they are a MARKETING company. I am not saying their juice is particularly bad but every bit of technical blurb they issue comes ready-coated with a thick layer of verbal varnish. It's their job to sell additive so this is to be expected.
My advice is you should not explicitly believe every thing you read and all that glitters is not gold.
That's very true -- you can't really trust a company's praising/marketing of its own product. They seem to be praising their new diblock-polymer VII now over their previous flagship star-polymer VII.
http://www.infineuminsight.com/insight/aug-2015/next-generation-viscosity-modifiers
The company is coowned by ExxonMobil and Shell. Don't underestimate their research efforts and skills.
Don't underestimate the benefits of VIIs because you think that there is a small chance that they might lead to more engine deposits.
VIIs have been known to reduce wear for a given KV and HTHSV since the 1980s, meaning that it's been known since the 1980s that a multigrade oil of the same HTHSV protects better against wear than a monograde oil. See the original 1989 ASTM book on HTHSV by James A. Spearot, Editor (link).
You can see why in H. A. Spike's 1997 paper: mixed lubrication -- and overview (link).
As you can see in the plots, oils containing VIIs (non-Newtonian) oils have higher minimum oil-film thickness in the mixed or elastohydrodynamic lubrication (EHD) regimes.
Would you run an oil that doesn't contain VII after seeing these plots or looking at the field-test graphs in Spearot's book?
Better protection against wear is one important benefit of VIIs. They also result in substantial improvements in fuel economy for a given HTHSV over oils that don't contain VIIs:
http://www.infineuminsight.com/insight/sep-2013/striking-the-right-balance
Regarding engine deposits, Mobil 1 0W-40 SN (VI = 185) and GC 0W-40 are the standard oils for world's most demanding high-performance turbocharged engines. They have a heavy dose of VII; yet, they are the very best mainstream cleaning oils in the world.
Newer VII technology is also pointing out in the direction that they help in cleaning the engine by also serving as dispersants.
When you are thinking about VIIs leaving deposits, you are really thinking about cheap VIIs used in cheap oils. There is no concern when you buy flagship oils like Mobil 1, PP, etc. This is not to say that the oil blenders should use 15% VII in an oil -- too much of any additive is a bad thing -- but in typical doses of top-quality VIIs used today, there is no need for concern.
I also used TGMO 0W-20 SN (VI = 236) in my 1985 Toyota and the used oil analysis were OK.
VIIs have been known to reduce wear for a given KV and HTHSV since the 1980s, meaning that it's been known since the 1980s that a multigrade oil of the same HTHSV protects better against wear than a monograde oil. See the original 1989 ASTM book on HTHSV by James A. Spearot, Editor (link).
You can see why in H. A. Spike's 1997 paper: mixed lubrication -- and overview (link).
As you can see in the plots, oils containing VIIs (non-Newtonian) oils have higher minimum oil-film thickness in the mixed or elastohydrodynamic lubrication (EHD) regimes.
Would you run an oil that doesn't contain VII after seeing these plots or looking at the field-test graphs in Spearot's book?
Better protection against wear is one important benefit of VIIs. They also result in substantial improvements in fuel economy for a given HTHSV over oils that don't contain VIIs:
http://www.infineuminsight.com/insight/sep-2013/striking-the-right-balance
Regarding engine deposits, Mobil 1 0W-40 SN (VI = 185) and GC 0W-40 are the standard oils for world's most demanding high-performance turbocharged engines. They have a heavy dose of VII; yet, they are the very best mainstream cleaning oils in the world.
Newer VII technology is also pointing out in the direction that they help in cleaning the engine by also serving as dispersants.
When you are thinking about VIIs leaving deposits, you are really thinking about cheap VIIs used in cheap oils. There is no concern when you buy flagship oils like Mobil 1, PP, etc. This is not to say that the oil blenders should use 15% VII in an oil -- too much of any additive is a bad thing -- but in typical doses of top-quality VIIs used today, there is no need for concern.
I also used TGMO 0W-20 SN (VI = 236) in my 1985 Toyota and the used oil analysis were OK.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: Joe90_guy
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Good reading on Infineum's SV line of VIIs. They are great additives and improve the oil in many ways:
http://www.infineuminsight.com/insight/jun-2013/satisfying-both-sides-of-the-equation
The first thing you need to understand about Infineum (and Paramins which came before it) is that first, second and third, they are a MARKETING company. I am not saying their juice is particularly bad but every bit of technical blurb they issue comes ready-coated with a thick layer of verbal varnish. It's their job to sell additive so this is to be expected.
My advice is you should not explicitly believe every thing you read and all that glitters is not gold.
That's very true -- you can't really trust a company's praising/marketing of its own product. They seem to be praising their new diblock-polymer VII now over their previous flagship star-polymer VII.
http://www.infineuminsight.com/insight/aug-2015/next-generation-viscosity-modifiers
The company is coowned by ExxonMobil and Shell. Don't underestimate their research efforts and skills.
I did thirteen years with Exxon & Paramins so I do know the culture. I've also had the misfortune to have to break bread with some ex-Infineum people. If I had to say anything, it would be that it's easy to OVER estimate how technically capable these people are. If I were to apply a metaphor...when you're outside the walls, the castle looks impregnable but when you're inside the walls all you can see is decrepitude, cracks and crumbling masonry! I suspect it's this that's behind the obsessive need to constantly apply the hype & sugar coating. A case in point is their tri-nuclear Moly. Does it work? Yes. Have they made a major production over just how 'different' it is? Yes. Is it stupidly expensive? Almost certainly. Is it that different 'in real' to other Moly additives? Nahhh...I very much doubt it...
Originally Posted By: Joe90_guy
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Good reading on Infineum's SV line of VIIs. They are great additives and improve the oil in many ways:
http://www.infineuminsight.com/insight/jun-2013/satisfying-both-sides-of-the-equation
The first thing you need to understand about Infineum (and Paramins which came before it) is that first, second and third, they are a MARKETING company. I am not saying their juice is particularly bad but every bit of technical blurb they issue comes ready-coated with a thick layer of verbal varnish. It's their job to sell additive so this is to be expected.
My advice is you should not explicitly believe every thing you read and all that glitters is not gold.
That's very true -- you can't really trust a company's praising/marketing of its own product. They seem to be praising their new diblock-polymer VII now over their previous flagship star-polymer VII.
http://www.infineuminsight.com/insight/aug-2015/next-generation-viscosity-modifiers
The company is coowned by ExxonMobil and Shell. Don't underestimate their research efforts and skills.
I did thirteen years with Exxon & Paramins so I do know the culture. I've also had the misfortune to have to break bread with some ex-Infineum people. If I had to say anything, it would be that it's easy to OVER estimate how technically capable these people are. If I were to apply a metaphor...when you're outside the walls, the castle looks impregnable but when you're inside the walls all you can see is decrepitude, cracks and crumbling masonry! I suspect it's this that's behind the obsessive need to constantly apply the hype & sugar coating. A case in point is their tri-nuclear Moly. Does it work? Yes. Have they made a major production over just how 'different' it is? Yes. Is it stupidly expensive? Almost certainly. Is it that different 'in real' to other Moly additives? Nahhh...I very much doubt it...
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Shannow
SR5,
as per Jetronic's post, there are some out there.
Boutique oils like Amsoil ACD are straight grades with multigrade characteristics. ACD is a straight 30 that does 10W30 as well, and has an inherent HTHS of 3.4...
Redline have a couple that are know, a 5W20 and a 5W30...the 5W20 has an HTHS of greater than 2.9, which is about where a Newtonian 20W20 would be.
M1 V Twin does also, but the HTHS of that oil makes it pretty unusable except in the V Twins.
There's the "Harman Index" which can give you an insight into how much of the manufacturer's data sheet numbers are affected by the presence or otherwise of VIIs.
Use a viscosity calculator to work out the KV at 150, then a density calculator to work out the density at 150...multiply KV150 by density 150, and you have a 150 low shear absolute viscosity approximation.
Compare that with the HTHS, and you can see roughly ho much the polymers are in play.
HTHS/absolute calculated 150 gives a ratio...1 is no apparent VII play (an HD30 will have a ratio of 1, Castrol Edge 25W50 has a ratio of 1, Mobil 1 VTwin does 1
Actually, the Red Line 0w30 uses almost NO VIIs now that the VI is down to a very low (to me
LOL ) 163.
Obviously their 0W-40 still has some with it's stated 190 VI.
The MPT 30K line claims to have NO VIIs added at all, save for their 0W-40 which has an absolute "minimal amount" to meet the 0W-40 specs, according to their blender/owner.
SR5,
as per Jetronic's post, there are some out there.
Boutique oils like Amsoil ACD are straight grades with multigrade characteristics. ACD is a straight 30 that does 10W30 as well, and has an inherent HTHS of 3.4...
Redline have a couple that are know, a 5W20 and a 5W30...the 5W20 has an HTHS of greater than 2.9, which is about where a Newtonian 20W20 would be.
M1 V Twin does also, but the HTHS of that oil makes it pretty unusable except in the V Twins.
There's the "Harman Index" which can give you an insight into how much of the manufacturer's data sheet numbers are affected by the presence or otherwise of VIIs.
Use a viscosity calculator to work out the KV at 150, then a density calculator to work out the density at 150...multiply KV150 by density 150, and you have a 150 low shear absolute viscosity approximation.
Compare that with the HTHS, and you can see roughly ho much the polymers are in play.
HTHS/absolute calculated 150 gives a ratio...1 is no apparent VII play (an HD30 will have a ratio of 1, Castrol Edge 25W50 has a ratio of 1, Mobil 1 VTwin does 1
Actually, the Red Line 0w30 uses almost NO VIIs now that the VI is down to a very low (to me
Obviously their 0W-40 still has some with it's stated 190 VI.
The MPT 30K line claims to have NO VIIs added at all, save for their 0W-40 which has an absolute "minimal amount" to meet the 0W-40 specs, according to their blender/owner.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
When you are thinking about VIIs leaving deposits, you are really thinking about cheap VIIs used in cheap oils. There is no concern when you buy flagship oils like Mobil 1, Pennzoil Platinum, etc. This is not to say that the oil blenders should use 15% VII in an oil -- too much of any additive is a bad thing -- but in typical doses of top-quality VIIs used today, there is no need for concern.
Can the knowledgeable on this thread PLEASE PLEASE weigh in on a yea, nay (or gray) as to the above, since it is one of the reasons I even started this thread (although we have already heard Joe's take on this).
THANKS IN ADVANCE!
When you are thinking about VIIs leaving deposits, you are really thinking about cheap VIIs used in cheap oils. There is no concern when you buy flagship oils like Mobil 1, Pennzoil Platinum, etc. This is not to say that the oil blenders should use 15% VII in an oil -- too much of any additive is a bad thing -- but in typical doses of top-quality VIIs used today, there is no need for concern.
Can the knowledgeable on this thread PLEASE PLEASE weigh in on a yea, nay (or gray) as to the above, since it is one of the reasons I even started this thread (although we have already heard Joe's take on this).
THANKS IN ADVANCE!
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Now THIS is a thread.
thanks guys.
YES, THIS is the MAIN reason I am a member of this site, and to me at least, should be the main purpose/use of this site (gaining knowledge).
TRIPLE thanks to all of the contributors!!
Now THIS is a thread.
thanks guys.
YES, THIS is the MAIN reason I am a member of this site, and to me at least, should be the main purpose/use of this site (gaining knowledge).
TRIPLE thanks to all of the contributors!!
Originally Posted By: Solarent
You might be right about the NOACK volatility - but to be honest I hate that test. The variability and reproduce-ability issues are enough to drive anyone insane - I'm curious about your opinion on it?
So does that make the NOACK number (which MANY on here consider not only the most important spec, but sometimes it seems, the ONLY spec) just as "less than useless" as the hated on here VI number, due to the test's fallibility/non-reproduce-ability?
Whether or not it is really as important/relevant as the VI number spec, IF it were a reproduce-able test is a subject for a whole other thread.
You might be right about the NOACK volatility - but to be honest I hate that test. The variability and reproduce-ability issues are enough to drive anyone insane - I'm curious about your opinion on it?
So does that make the NOACK number (which MANY on here consider not only the most important spec, but sometimes it seems, the ONLY spec) just as "less than useless" as the hated on here VI number, due to the test's fallibility/non-reproduce-ability?
Whether or not it is really as important/relevant as the VI number spec, IF it were a reproduce-able test is a subject for a whole other thread.
MolaKule
Staff member
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
When you are thinking about VIIs leaving deposits, you are really thinking about cheap VIIs used in cheap oils. There is no concern when you buy flagship oils like Mobil 1, Pennzoil Platinum, etc. This is not to say that the oil blenders should use 15% VII in an oil -- too much of any additive is a bad thing -- but in typical doses of top-quality VIIs used today, there is no need for concern.
Can the knowledgeable on this thread PLEASE PLEASE weigh in on a yea, nay (or gray) as to the above, since it is one of the reasons I even started this thread (although we have already heard Joe's take on this).
THANKS IN ADVANCE!
I totally agree with Gokhan.
Some of the older OCP's and PIB's of the the 60's and 70's were lousy, but today are much improved by orders of magnitude.
And just a side note, Brightstock is rarely used in current formulations.
As far as volatility tests, there is some variation but all tests have statistical variation.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
When you are thinking about VIIs leaving deposits, you are really thinking about cheap VIIs used in cheap oils. There is no concern when you buy flagship oils like Mobil 1, Pennzoil Platinum, etc. This is not to say that the oil blenders should use 15% VII in an oil -- too much of any additive is a bad thing -- but in typical doses of top-quality VIIs used today, there is no need for concern.
Can the knowledgeable on this thread PLEASE PLEASE weigh in on a yea, nay (or gray) as to the above, since it is one of the reasons I even started this thread (although we have already heard Joe's take on this).
THANKS IN ADVANCE!
I totally agree with Gokhan.
Some of the older OCP's and PIB's of the the 60's and 70's were lousy, but today are much improved by orders of magnitude.
And just a side note, Brightstock is rarely used in current formulations.
As far as volatility tests, there is some variation but all tests have statistical variation.
Last edited:
Not sure that I recall ANYONE stating that Noack is the most important measurable parameter on any oil. There's a few people with certain biases who discount it as irrelevent, only because their pets appear to do poorly in it.
Funny, how the major proponent of NOACK is meaningless also wanted the whole VI system changed because it picked on 20 grades.
Yep, there's issues with the repeatability of the test, and while it's original intent was for contaminant transfer into exhaust aftertreatment (not oils thickening in service as posited by aforementioned poster), it's an important issue, that the industry is looking at replacing with other tests.
It's errors don't make what it is trying to do less important.
Whereas VI, a dimensionless number comparing the KV40 and KV100 means absolutely nothing without either the KV40 or KV100 to define other points on the curve.
And it's not an engineering parameter used in design of anything.
Funny, how the major proponent of NOACK is meaningless also wanted the whole VI system changed because it picked on 20 grades.
Yep, there's issues with the repeatability of the test, and while it's original intent was for contaminant transfer into exhaust aftertreatment (not oils thickening in service as posited by aforementioned poster), it's an important issue, that the industry is looking at replacing with other tests.
It's errors don't make what it is trying to do less important.
Whereas VI, a dimensionless number comparing the KV40 and KV100 means absolutely nothing without either the KV40 or KV100 to define other points on the curve.
And it's not an engineering parameter used in design of anything.
MolaKule
Staff member
It seems many people look at only one characteristic of an oil's technical data sheet and for some reason fixate on it.
Again folks, it is the totality of the formulation and its performance that matters.
Again folks, it is the totality of the formulation and its performance that matters.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Solarent said:So does that make the NOACK number (which MANY on here consider not only the most important spec, but sometimes it seems, the ONLY spec) just as "less than useless" as the hated on here VI number, due to the test's fallibility/non-reproduce-ability?
Whether or not it is really as important/relevant as the VI number spec, IF it were a reproduce-able test is a subject for a whole other thread.
There have been threads on NOACK.
NOACK alone doesn't tell you anything. You can have a Group II 20W-50 and its NOACK will be very low. All it shows is that it has a very thick base oil, which means it doesn't evaporate much as a result.
NOACK is only useful if you are comparing base oils with the same viscosity. Then you can get a sense of the quality of the base oil.
Otherwise, NOACK doesn't tell you about the quality of the base oil. You can have an 8 cSt Group II base oil with a lot lower NOACK than a 4 cSt Group IV (PAO) base oil. Despite that, the Group IV oil will have much less traction (surface) friction, much higher oxidation resistance, much better cleaning, etc.
NOACK is primarily important in lowering the oil consumption but if it's already less than 10 - 13% or so, it doesn't help much with oil consumption to lower it further.
NOACK doesn't determine an oil's cleaning ability or durability (oxidation resistance).
If you understand to compare NOACK for only similar base-oil viscosities -- such as 10w30 vs. 10w30 but not 10w30 vs. 5w30 -- than it could be a good indicator of base-oil quality, even though it still won't be an absolute indicator.
It took me a long time to appreciate the true significance of oil volatility and the NOACK test. That people don't properly understand the nature of the beast is perfectly understandable.
I have recounted a few times on BITOG the story of my 'home brewed', 11% Noack, full synthetic that I ran out to 15k miles. The oil was fine but somewhere along the line, 40% of the oil had exited the sump. This really puzzled me. 11% vs 40%? What gives? I'm probably the world's most boring driver and the UK has a boringly average climate so the oil never gets that hot. Also, I might not be the world's best PCMO formulator (although I reckon I'm at least in the Top One) so if I can't explain this, who can?
It was then I started thinking about puddles! We have an abundance of these in England as it rains quite a lot. They disappear too. Last time I looked, water boils at 100C (212F) so clearly they don't boil off. In fact they seem to be happy to depart at 10C. And that's when I started thinking about vapour pressure and the gas laws and all those mass transfer lectures I half slept through at university. Even at 10C, water exerts a measurable vapour pressure. Blow a constant stream of relatively dry air over the surface of the puddle (did I mention that we also have a lot of wind in the UK?) and you set up a vapour pressure equilibrium driven mass transfer mechanism which slowly but surely transfers the puddle into the air.
Now imagine your engine oil to be the puddle. Imagine the hot blow-by gas and the crankcase purge air as the wind. Even though the oil is well below it's Initial Boiling Point of 370C, it exerts a small but measurable vapour pressure. The same conditions for liquid to vapour mass transfer exist. Except things are a lot more complicated. The crankcase is a violent place so the surface area for mass transfer is greatly increased. The speed and temperature of the 'wind' depends on your speed and load and particularly on the condition of your piston rings (which gets worse with age).
Unlike the single component (H2O) of the puddle, your oil is a complex mixture of hydrocarbons and chemicals each of which exerts it's own vapour pressure. If you poured a bit of vodka into a rain puddle, in theory it should disappear more quickly as the lighter ethonal 'pulls' at the heavier water as it leaves. The same things happens in your oil and this is further complicated it you have extreme volatiles (condensed unburnt fuel and water) entering the crankcase. And then there's the dimension of time. I reckon my oil sat in the crankcase for about 400 hours of engine-on time. 400 hours of accumulated mass transfer.
So, the NOACK test, a test from the 1930s, which passes cold air over the quiescent surface of a cup of oil at 250C for just one hour didn't replicate what actually happen on my car. Why am I not surprised??? How could be expected to? So when folks say stuff like 'a Noack of 15% or under is safe' I just roll my eyes to Heaven.
Oil volatility is like smoking ciggies, there is no such thing as a 'safe' limit. The analogy is a good one. My old grandad smoked 40 Woodbines a day and lived twenty years longer than his son who didn't touch the foul weed. But statistically a lot of people who do smoke die prematurely. When your engine develops a stuck oil ring after 80,000 miles and you start consuming oil like it's going out of style, that's probably due to oil evaporation.
I am thinking about designing a better, more appropriate oil volatility test. So far all I have is the name...the JOACK test! Watch this space...
I have recounted a few times on BITOG the story of my 'home brewed', 11% Noack, full synthetic that I ran out to 15k miles. The oil was fine but somewhere along the line, 40% of the oil had exited the sump. This really puzzled me. 11% vs 40%? What gives? I'm probably the world's most boring driver and the UK has a boringly average climate so the oil never gets that hot. Also, I might not be the world's best PCMO formulator (although I reckon I'm at least in the Top One) so if I can't explain this, who can?
It was then I started thinking about puddles! We have an abundance of these in England as it rains quite a lot. They disappear too. Last time I looked, water boils at 100C (212F) so clearly they don't boil off. In fact they seem to be happy to depart at 10C. And that's when I started thinking about vapour pressure and the gas laws and all those mass transfer lectures I half slept through at university. Even at 10C, water exerts a measurable vapour pressure. Blow a constant stream of relatively dry air over the surface of the puddle (did I mention that we also have a lot of wind in the UK?) and you set up a vapour pressure equilibrium driven mass transfer mechanism which slowly but surely transfers the puddle into the air.
Now imagine your engine oil to be the puddle. Imagine the hot blow-by gas and the crankcase purge air as the wind. Even though the oil is well below it's Initial Boiling Point of 370C, it exerts a small but measurable vapour pressure. The same conditions for liquid to vapour mass transfer exist. Except things are a lot more complicated. The crankcase is a violent place so the surface area for mass transfer is greatly increased. The speed and temperature of the 'wind' depends on your speed and load and particularly on the condition of your piston rings (which gets worse with age).
Unlike the single component (H2O) of the puddle, your oil is a complex mixture of hydrocarbons and chemicals each of which exerts it's own vapour pressure. If you poured a bit of vodka into a rain puddle, in theory it should disappear more quickly as the lighter ethonal 'pulls' at the heavier water as it leaves. The same things happens in your oil and this is further complicated it you have extreme volatiles (condensed unburnt fuel and water) entering the crankcase. And then there's the dimension of time. I reckon my oil sat in the crankcase for about 400 hours of engine-on time. 400 hours of accumulated mass transfer.
So, the NOACK test, a test from the 1930s, which passes cold air over the quiescent surface of a cup of oil at 250C for just one hour didn't replicate what actually happen on my car. Why am I not surprised??? How could be expected to? So when folks say stuff like 'a Noack of 15% or under is safe' I just roll my eyes to Heaven.
Oil volatility is like smoking ciggies, there is no such thing as a 'safe' limit. The analogy is a good one. My old grandad smoked 40 Woodbines a day and lived twenty years longer than his son who didn't touch the foul weed. But statistically a lot of people who do smoke die prematurely. When your engine develops a stuck oil ring after 80,000 miles and you start consuming oil like it's going out of style, that's probably due to oil evaporation.
I am thinking about designing a better, more appropriate oil volatility test. So far all I have is the name...the JOACK test! Watch this space...
+1
As a complete noobie on additive technology and Noack volatility , your insightful line of thought when explaining complex and 'contradictory' engineering systems/phenomenon ,devoid of biasness ,make it so easy for others to follow ....
As a complete noobie on additive technology and Noack volatility , your insightful line of thought when explaining complex and 'contradictory' engineering systems/phenomenon ,devoid of biasness ,make it so easy for others to follow ....
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
When you are thinking about VIIs leaving deposits, you are really thinking about cheap VIIs used in cheap oils. There is no concern when you buy flagship oils like Mobil 1, Pennzoil Platinum, etc. This is not to say that the oil blenders should use 15% VII in an oil -- too much of any additive is a bad thing -- but in typical doses of top-quality VIIs used today, there is no need for concern.
Can the knowledgeable on this thread PLEASE PLEASE weigh in on a yea, nay (or gray) as to the above, since it is one of the reasons I even started this thread (although we have already heard Joe's take on this).
THANKS IN ADVANCE!
I totally agree with Gokhan.
Some of the older OCP's and PIB's of the the 60's and 70's were lousy, but today are much improved by orders of magnitude.
And just a side note, Brightstock is rarely used in current formulations.
As far as volatility tests, there is some variation but all tests have statistical variation.
I would also add that when you get right down to it, a lot of the OCP's in use today come from the same source. No matter who you buy your liquid polymer from today, the solids that they are made from only come from 2 maybe 3 suppliers. So even cheap oils would likely use the same VII. VII's have come a long way since the 60's, but as has been stated too much or the incorrect use of VII's can lead to formulation issues.
A lot of the posts that come from those people who do (or did) this for a living is about splitting hairs and fine tuning formulas in the development stage. When these formulas finally make their way into the bottles of mainstream oil marketers any of these related issues are typically resolved.
On a side note- we just need Tom_NJ to contribute to this thread and we'd have a real oil nerd party going on!
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
When you are thinking about VIIs leaving deposits, you are really thinking about cheap VIIs used in cheap oils. There is no concern when you buy flagship oils like Mobil 1, Pennzoil Platinum, etc. This is not to say that the oil blenders should use 15% VII in an oil -- too much of any additive is a bad thing -- but in typical doses of top-quality VIIs used today, there is no need for concern.
Can the knowledgeable on this thread PLEASE PLEASE weigh in on a yea, nay (or gray) as to the above, since it is one of the reasons I even started this thread (although we have already heard Joe's take on this).
THANKS IN ADVANCE!
I totally agree with Gokhan.
Some of the older OCP's and PIB's of the the 60's and 70's were lousy, but today are much improved by orders of magnitude.
And just a side note, Brightstock is rarely used in current formulations.
As far as volatility tests, there is some variation but all tests have statistical variation.
I would also add that when you get right down to it, a lot of the OCP's in use today come from the same source. No matter who you buy your liquid polymer from today, the solids that they are made from only come from 2 maybe 3 suppliers. So even cheap oils would likely use the same VII. VII's have come a long way since the 60's, but as has been stated too much or the incorrect use of VII's can lead to formulation issues.
A lot of the posts that come from those people who do (or did) this for a living is about splitting hairs and fine tuning formulas in the development stage. When these formulas finally make their way into the bottles of mainstream oil marketers any of these related issues are typically resolved.
On a side note- we just need Tom_NJ to contribute to this thread and we'd have a real oil nerd party going on!
Originally Posted By: Solarent
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
When you are thinking about VIIs leaving deposits, you are really thinking about cheap VIIs used in cheap oils. There is no concern when you buy flagship oils like Mobil 1, Pennzoil Platinum, etc. This is not to say that the oil blenders should use 15% VII in an oil -- too much of any additive is a bad thing -- but in typical doses of top-quality VIIs used today, there is no need for concern.
Can the knowledgeable on this thread PLEASE PLEASE weigh in on a yea, nay (or gray) as to the above, since it is one of the reasons I even started this thread (although we have already heard Joe's take on this).
THANKS IN ADVANCE!
I totally agree with Gokhan.
Some of the older OCP's and PIB's of the the 60's and 70's were lousy, but today are much improved by orders of magnitude.
And just a side note, Brightstock is rarely used in current formulations.
As far as volatility tests, there is some variation but all tests have statistical variation.
I would also add that when you get right down to it, a lot of the OCP's in use today come from the same source. No matter who you buy your liquid polymer from today, the solids that they are made from only come from 2 maybe 3 suppliers. So even cheap oils would likely use the same VII. VII's have come a long way since the 60's, but as has been stated too much or the incorrect use of VII's can lead to formulation issues.
A lot of the posts that come from those people who do (or did) this for a living is about splitting hairs and fine tuning formulas in the development stage. When these formulas finally make their way into the bottles of mainstream oil marketers any of these related issues are typically resolved.
On a side note- we just need Tom_NJ to contribute to this thread and we'd have a real oil nerd party going on!
My history is a bit rusty these days but didn't the VII thing all kick off with Texaco's TLA 347 OCP VI, which was made by DSM?
Today the biggest supplier of VII must be Lubrizol who in turn get the stuff from Mitsui. Other than a bit of cosmetic cleaning up, I suspect the Lz OCP has quite a lot in common with TLA 347.
I did hear tell once that Lz operate a sliding scale price structure for VII in that the more you use, the lower the price becomes. If this were the case, it incentivises oil companies to spread the same VII as far as they can, from cheap stuff, right up to top tier. One has to bear in mind that while there may be technically better VIIs or Dispersant VIIs, on a treat cost basis, it's incredibly difficult to beat cheap OCP.
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
When you are thinking about VIIs leaving deposits, you are really thinking about cheap VIIs used in cheap oils. There is no concern when you buy flagship oils like Mobil 1, Pennzoil Platinum, etc. This is not to say that the oil blenders should use 15% VII in an oil -- too much of any additive is a bad thing -- but in typical doses of top-quality VIIs used today, there is no need for concern.
Can the knowledgeable on this thread PLEASE PLEASE weigh in on a yea, nay (or gray) as to the above, since it is one of the reasons I even started this thread (although we have already heard Joe's take on this).
THANKS IN ADVANCE!
I totally agree with Gokhan.
Some of the older OCP's and PIB's of the the 60's and 70's were lousy, but today are much improved by orders of magnitude.
And just a side note, Brightstock is rarely used in current formulations.
As far as volatility tests, there is some variation but all tests have statistical variation.
I would also add that when you get right down to it, a lot of the OCP's in use today come from the same source. No matter who you buy your liquid polymer from today, the solids that they are made from only come from 2 maybe 3 suppliers. So even cheap oils would likely use the same VII. VII's have come a long way since the 60's, but as has been stated too much or the incorrect use of VII's can lead to formulation issues.
A lot of the posts that come from those people who do (or did) this for a living is about splitting hairs and fine tuning formulas in the development stage. When these formulas finally make their way into the bottles of mainstream oil marketers any of these related issues are typically resolved.
On a side note- we just need Tom_NJ to contribute to this thread and we'd have a real oil nerd party going on!
My history is a bit rusty these days but didn't the VII thing all kick off with Texaco's TLA 347 OCP VI, which was made by DSM?
Today the biggest supplier of VII must be Lubrizol who in turn get the stuff from Mitsui. Other than a bit of cosmetic cleaning up, I suspect the Lz OCP has quite a lot in common with TLA 347.
I did hear tell once that Lz operate a sliding scale price structure for VII in that the more you use, the lower the price becomes. If this were the case, it incentivises oil companies to spread the same VII as far as they can, from cheap stuff, right up to top tier. One has to bear in mind that while there may be technically better VIIs or Dispersant VIIs, on a treat cost basis, it's incredibly difficult to beat cheap OCP.
OCP struggles with today's modern European OEM specifications. For example the TU5 and VW T4. Styrene butadienes are now required.
Look at the readacross guidelines in 1509 and ATIEL. non DVM (non dispersant VM) is seen as a bad actor in many deposit tests and the rules of readacross reflect this.
As for VMs, some oil companies have developed there own specific polymers.
Look at the readacross guidelines in 1509 and ATIEL. non DVM (non dispersant VM) is seen as a bad actor in many deposit tests and the rules of readacross reflect this.
As for VMs, some oil companies have developed there own specific polymers.
Yes. Correct. Shellvis is polymerically more efficient but last time I looked (a couple of years ago maybe?), in crude terms, Shellvis was cost equivalent to Lz OCP + 20% Group III. If you factor that in to the equation, then the apparent advantage for Styrene-Butadiene evaporates before your eyes. Also, while I'm happy to concede that in 15W40 Euro HDDO, even after you take into account cost equivalence, you might still opt for Shellvis, drop down to any ACEA 3.5 min HTHS xW-30 and Sv looks pants!
MolaKule
Staff member
In advanced Organic Chemistry courses we take 1/3 of the semester to discuss polymer science.
For those wanting to further investigate this fascinating aspect of Organic Chemistry, here is one Journal devoted to the topic:
Journal of Applied Polymer Science
For those wanting to further investigate this fascinating aspect of Organic Chemistry, here is one Journal devoted to the topic:
Journal of Applied Polymer Science
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked