How does the Energy Conserving spec work?

[Hokiefyd]

I just poured a 5-quart jug of Pennzoil's High Mileage Vehicle oil into my '07 Town & Country. Love the oil...the engine is as smooth and as quiet as its ever been on this oil.

It does NOT have the ENERGY CONSERVING tag on the API donut. It is API-SM certified, but it's not "energy conserving".

But every other non-HM 10w30 (for example) on the shelf IS "energy conserving". It makes me curious how a 5W-20 oil, with a lower viscosity, and a lower HT/HS, can NOT be energy conserving, but a demonstrably "thicker" oil is.

Please help this apparent newbie on this subject!

 

[ARCOgraphite]

IIRC, you have to show a demonstrated fractional percent fuel milage gain vs some STD grade. Go to Lubrizol or ??? and read the ILSAC GF-4/5 specicification. I Have a GF-4 PDF saved on my home PC but I dont have it here at work or I could happily quote the spec.

 

[mechtech2]

High Mileage oils are additive enhanced, and are thicker in their range than 'normal' oils.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: mechtech2
High Mileage oils are additive enhanced, and are thicker in their range than 'normal' oils.


So the "energy conserving" specification is a relative one, relative to that viscosity grade only...not an absolute one? No 40wt oil (5W-, 10W-, 15W-, etc) that I've seen said "energy conserving". Most all 30wt oils do, excepting the straight 30 and High Mileage varieties. I assumed that there was some fine line in there where the High Mileage 30wt oils were JUST over to be considered "energy conserving".

Now that High Mileage 5W-20s are plentiful, I knew that my assumption was out the window.

 

[Hokiefyd]

By the way, this is the GF-4 fuel efficiency specification, and frankly, I don't know what the heck it means. It does not list a specific reference oilm and I'm not familiar with the ASTM sequence listed.

ASTM Sequence VIBb (ASTM D 6837)
SAE 0W-20 and 5W-20 viscosity grades:
2.3% FEI 1 (min) after 16 hours aging
2.0% FEI 2 (min) after 96 hours aging

 

[MolaKule]

Not exactly.

The difference is that in EC oils there is an addtive called a "friction modifier" most generally a monooleate or a fatty acid which reduces friction so that one gains a slightly greater mpg advantage.

 

[ItsuMitsubishi]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Not exactly.

The difference is that in EC oils there is an addtive called a "friction modifier" most generally a monooleate or a fatty acid which reduces friction so that one gains a slightly greater mpg advantage.


Cool! What are the trade offs to using these friction modifiers compared to not using them?

 

[MolaKule]

Quote:
most generally a monooleate or a fatty acid which reduces friction so that one gains a slightly greater mpg advantage.


I am not sure what you are looking for other than what was stated above.

 

[buster]

I was told they also add more VII's so the oil will shear a bit, hence all the low HT/HS oils on the market now. This is in addition to FM.

 

[ItsuMitsubishi]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
most generally a monooleate or a fatty acid which reduces friction so that one gains a slightly greater mpg advantage.


I am not sure what you are looking for other than what was stated above.

I'm basically curious as to if there is a downside at all. I mean, it can't possibly be all good with no risk could it?

 

[ItsuMitsubishi]

Originally Posted By: buster
I was told they also add more VII's so the oil will shear a bit, hence all the low HT/HS oils on the market now. This is in addition to FM.


Yeah VIIs we know that there is certainly a downside to their use. They dont lubricate very well and are prone to breaking apart and burning into hard deposits.

 

[MolaKule]

Quote:
I'm basically curious as to if there is a downside at all. I mean, it can't possibly be all good with no risk could it?


I am still not sure what you are asking.

An FM such as I mentioned above reduces viscous friction forces as well as reducing mechanical friction.

An oil without a specialized FM such as above may see a few or tenths loss of HP to the wheels due to the absence of an FM.

Any time ou can reduce friction, you are putting more mechanical energy into the differential and less into oil heating and component heating, since energy is never destroyed, only transformed from one type into another.

 

[MolaKule]

You only put in enough VII's to get the viscosity range you need, assuming your base oil does not have a large VI.

 

[ItsuMitsubishi]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
I'm basically curious as to if there is a downside at all. I mean, it can't possibly be all good with no risk could it?


I am still not sure what you are asking.

An FM such as I mentioned above reduces viscous friction forces as well as reducing mechanical friction.

An oil without a specialized FM such as above may see a few or tenths loss of HP to the wheels due to the absence of an FM.

Any time ou can reduce friction, you are putting more mechanical energy into the differential and less into oil heating and component heating, since energy is never destroyed, only transformed from one type into another.


Thank you for the information sir.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
most generally a monooleate or a fatty acid which reduces friction so that one gains a slightly greater mpg advantage.


I am not sure what you are looking for other than what was stated above.

I think the poster may wish to understand if the FM (e.g: MonoOleate)could be unstable and degrade and form acids or varnish or possibly have surface competion with EP antiwear agents or the like. Of is adding the FM in some small percentage to demonstrate the 2-3% fuel economy gain have no deleterious effect in expected oil in-service life or engine wear or deposit formation or TBN retention.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

Here is an FM from Chemtura In CT, USA:
(I dont know if this is suitable for PCMO)

DESCRIPTION
Kemester 2000 is glycerol mono-oleate, an ester containing high levels of monoglycerides made from 100% renewable raw materials. It is recommended for use in lubricants as a friction modifier. This product is designed to have greater than 50% alpha monoglyceride, which provides enhanced friction modification properties in a wide range of lubricant applications. Kemester 2000 also possesses the inherent stability characteristics expected from an all-natural component used in a lubricant. It can be used in a wide range of temperature applications from room temperature to an excess of 100°C. The product is best handled at elevated temperatures (40ºC to 50ºC) for optimum ease of handling. Kemester 2000 is compatible with most mineral base oils, white oils, and synthetic base stocks.
TYPICAL
DATA
Properties Typical
Specific Gravity 0.95
Viscosity cSt @40ºC 88.71
Viscosity cSt @100ºC 9.88
VI 89
Alpha Monoglyceride, wt. % 52
Water, wt. % 0.7
Free Glycerine, % less than 1.0
Acid # 2
Iodine Value 80
HANDLING
INFORMATION
Kemester 2000 is a monoglyceride that is normally handled at elevated temperatures. For general purposes, the following storage and handling temperatures are recommended: Storage Handling
40-50°C (104-122°F) 40-70°C (104-158°F)
SAFETY
INFORMATION
For more extensive information on the safe handling and use of this product, please refer to the Material Safety Data Sheet.
SHIPPING
INFORMATION
Kemester 2000 is available in both bulk and in drums. This product is not regulated by DOT. Freight description is fatty acids esters of vegetable, fish or animal...

 

[addyguy]

Very interesting, ARCO.

 

[UNC017]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
most generally a monooleate or a fatty acid which reduces friction so that one gains a slightly greater mpg advantage.


I am not sure what you are looking for other than what was stated above.

I think he's asking about the difference between friction reduction and wear reduction. If wear were directly proportional to frictional losses, then every single oil should have these types of FM additives, right? But they don't. And the explanation I've always read is that such FMs don't necessarily produce the minimum wear. Anti-wear additives that DO reduce wear sometimes increase friction slightly. Ergo, FMs may lower friction but produce more wear than AW additives which reduce wear but produce more friction. True?

 

[river_rat]

So the presence of FMs, all other things being equal, tend to reduce engine wear?

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: river_rat
So the presence of FMs, all other things being equal, tend to reduce engine wear?

Only very slightly. They help "protect" from gentle (common) contacts and reduce friction at the same time. True AW protect against harder impacts and actually react with surface metal.