List of oils by base-oil-quality index: a ranking

Messages
43,650
Location
'Stralia
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
They also use organic solvents to dissolve the additives and these are volatile.
Really ? I though that was simply GrI carrier oil as opposed to something like kerosene. But if you ARE correct, and they are using solvents to dissolve the additives, then why is their volatising off undesirable ?...it's not carrying the additives with it, same as burning off some fuel dilution... Basically you need to demonstrate that a) they are using volatile solvents for carriers b) presuming a) is correct (which I don't believe) that they take the additives with them.
 

Gokhan

Thread starter
Messages
5,318
Location
Paramount, California
Originally Posted By: Shannow
I though that was simply GrI carrier oil as opposed to something like kerosene.
Did I say kerosene? Isn't Group I mineral oil a solvent for this purpose? It was brought up in reference to its effect on NOACK.
 
Messages
2,050
Location
Sequim, WA
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
There are volatile and nonvolatile additives. The elemental metals you see in the UOAs usually come from nonvolatile, inorganic additives. They also use organic solvents to dissolve the additives and these are volatile. I believe that's what OVERKILL was referring to and it's a valid point.
Every time Gokhan posts a proctologist gets a Ferrari. Ed
 
Messages
16,542
Location
...
Could we see a list of volatile and non-volatile additives? In the end the blenders are matching a specific recipe for the oil they are making. If there was a volatility-induced additive loss, then wouldn't they compensate for that in order to meet the specs given?
 

Gokhan

Thread starter
Messages
5,318
Location
Paramount, California
I don't know why edhackett is trolling me now. This whole thing about additives was put forward by OVERKILL, not me, days ago, and it's only in relation to the additive package's affect on NOACK, which is carried out at 250 °C, not in relation to how the volatile additives are lost or not during a regular OCI. Here is what started all this:
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
The HTHS is 3.5cP, so it is on the heavy end of the 30 scale.
OK, but then why is the NOACK so high? You would think it would be around 4% for such a thick PAO oil. Perhaps they used a very cheap PAO? Or the esters affecting the CCS and/or NOACK?
Perhaps the additives? That base has a 4.1% NOACK, and ESTEREX 111 (11.9cSt) has a 1.4% NOACK. It's a finished oil, so there is definitely the possibility of something in the add pack being more volatile than the bases.
This was my joking response to OVERKILL:
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Perhaps the additives? That base has a 4.1% NOACK, and ESTEREX 111 (11.9cSt) has a 1.4% NOACK. It's a finished oil, so there is definitely the possibility of something in the add pack being more volatile than the bases.
OK, we'll give the Red Line the benefit of the doubt. Not comfortable with all the additives evaporating out of the oil though. wink
In seriousness though I agree with OVERKILL that the additive package may affect the NOACK somewhat. How much? I don't know. Does it change to conclusions of the base-oil-quality index (BOQI)? Probably not that much.
 
Messages
1,365
Location
Europe
Originally Posted By: PimTac
I missed the education of how additives evaporate out of the oil. The uoa's we see look just like the VOA. I believe he has me blocked anyway. It would be good for him to explain this.
By and large, most 'true' oil additives are heavy and non-volatile. However not all additives are 100% 'neat stuff'. For example, ashless dispersants, as often as not, are diluted with 50% base oil to make them handleable. Put a conventional ashless through the Noack test and you will see some evaporation, but this is from the diluent base oil, not the ashless itself. However, for a given KV100 & CCS, any oil containing a standard DI pack will have a significantly higher Noack than the equivalent oil containing no DI (this despite the fact that additives tend to be non-volatile!). This is all to do with how all DI componentry (but especially ashless dispersant) impacts disproportionately negatively on CCS and forces you to use more light, high Noack base oil in a blend to get your CCS on-grade. These base oil indices only work if you limit their use to oils with a similar DI pack (such as GF-5 oils).
 
Messages
904
Location
Hawaii, USA
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I would remind folks that base oil is just one of the aspects of a fully formulated lubricant. Add-packs have a huge effect on the overall performance (you know; stuff we appreciate like wear reduction and contamination control). The BOQI paints only part of the picture, and perhaps that's why we see lubes with a lower BOQI score still do admirably well in the real world, where it counts.
Exactly, a poor oil with a louzy BOQI could be the top oil as a finished product with additives and even blending.
 
Messages
694
Location
Ont Canada
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
It's a very interesting topic, and makes one ponder the implications. But I don't see that it matters for most folks, most of the time. I don't care about the nuances of what goes in the bottle. I care about the results. What does wear data tell us? For normal applications, I don't see that high-end expensive lubes (that which would score highly in this BOQ list) do any better job of reducing wear or cleaning or cooling in a normal OCI in a healthy engine system, versus lower alternatives. If you go OUTSIDE normal those conditions (really long OCIs, previous neglect, cooling/fuel/air systems malfunctioning, etc), then maybe it matters. I've run some really inexpensive oils in UOA testing, but they were always API certified. And they do every bit as well as expensive lubes, even when pushed further than most folks would believe. For example the W/M ST lubes scored low on your list, but I've run them in successive LONG OCIs (dino 5w-30 out to 15k miles in a soccer-mom mini-van application) and yet the UOA wear data was not just "OK", but excellent. Even when pulling the valve cover, there was no undue sludge or varnish. So, the low BOQI score you give belies the performance it really provides. Also, you advise to avoid those which score lower than 22.0, but Motorcraft semi-syn 5-30 comes in a 21.9 ... This is a lube that traditionally turns in very good UOA data. I agree that lubes which are highly rated on this BOQ list may have more POTENTIAL to perform better IF really extreme conditions would warrant. But most of the time, they are products that possess excess capacity that will NEVER be utilized. Even "normal" products have more capacity than most folks use. Having more of an unused capability is just waste. It's a measure of "better" than never materializes into usefulness. The lubes at the top of the list have a BOQI approximately 3x higher than those near the bottom. If I were to use a lube with BOQI at 75, versus a lube with BOQI at 25, am I going to be able to see a tangible difference of 3x less wear, or 3x cleaner head surfaces, or 3x better fuel economy, or 3x easier starting in cold weather ... I think you see where I'm going with this. The scale has no real value. The BOQI scale provides an ability to rate lubes on a list, but that scale has no value in terms of real world function. PU does not provide 3x less wear than ST dino oil in a 10k mile OCI. PYB is 3x better than Chevron Supreme, Motorcraft or Valvoline White bottle oil? I'm sorry, but macro statistics wear-data just does not support such a claim. I don't see any correlation between your list and real world product performance in the crankcase.
I was going to mention the same thing, a few oils on the bottom of the list return excellent UOAs every application so Ya.
 
Messages
43,650
Location
'Stralia
Originally Posted By: Koz1
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Having more of an unused capability is just waste. It's a measure of "better" than never materializes into usefulness. The lubes at the top of the list have a BOQI approximately 3x higher than those near the bottom. If I were to use a lube with BOQI at 75, versus a lube with BOQI at 25, am I going to be able to see a tangible difference of 3x less wear, or 3x cleaner head surfaces, or 3x better fuel economy, or 3x easier starting in cold weather ... I think you see where I'm going with this. The scale has no real value. The BOQI scale provides an ability to rate lubes on a list, but that scale has no value in terms of real world function. PU does not provide 3x less wear than ST dino oil in a 10k mile OCI. PYB is 3x better than Chevron Supreme, Motorcraft or Valvoline White bottle oil? I'm sorry, but macro statistics wear-data just does not support such a claim. I don't see any correlation between your list and real world product performance in the crankcase.
I was going to mention the same thing, a few oils on the bottom of the list return excellent UOAs every application so Ya.
Similarly, is an oil that shows 1ppm Fe (or Al, or Pb) per 1,000 miles going to last 2x as long as an oil that shows 2ppm per 1,000 miles in the same engine in the same application ? Is it genuinely really only "wearing" half as much ?
 
Messages
28,129
Location
Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
In seriousness though I agree with OVERKILL that the additive package may affect the NOACK somewhat. How much? I don't know. Does it change to conclusions of the base-oil-quality index (BOQI)? Probably not that much.
That's an awful lot of hand waving to deal with a counter-example that very well might shoot the hypothesis right between the eyeballs. If your index was designed to determine which API grouping the base oils of a finished oil belong, and it rates a Group IV/V below a Group III, then clearly it isn't working.
 

Gokhan

Thread starter
Messages
5,318
Location
Paramount, California
Originally Posted By: Tengkusyahputra
Is that amsoil signature series latest product still pao contains?
Yes, Amsoil Signature Series has always been mostly PAO-based.
 

Gokhan

Thread starter
Messages
5,318
Location
Paramount, California
Originally Posted By: Garak
That's an awful lot of hand waving to deal with a counter-example that very well might shoot the hypothesis right between the eyeballs. If your index was designed to determine which API grouping the base oils of a finished oil belong, and it rates a Group IV/V below a Group III, then clearly it isn't working.
No, it's working. First and most, unless the test data is coming from PQIA, the BOQI value is not official. Second, to make things worse, Red Line didn't report a figure after the decimal point for NOACK. ASTM D5800-15a dictates that a single figure after the decimal point must be reported. They also reported the CCS with one significant figure and it's normally reported with three. Third, even using the Red Line data, Red Line 5W-30 with BOQI ~ 60 is at the very top in BOQI among the current oil formulations, not including the PAO-based Amsoil Signature Series, which is around BOQI = 80. Fourth, we don't know how much Group I base oil or other volatile compounds Red Line used in their additive package. The Group I base oil in the additive package becomes part of the overall base oil and reduces the base-oil quality significantly. Fifth, we don't know the quality level of the PAO used in Red Line. In fact we don't even know if they substituted Group III for some of the PAO. As OVERKILL's data indicates, NOACK for ExxonMobil PAO is around 3 - 4%. This going up to 6% could be because of the Group I base oil and other volatile compounds coming from the additive package. Nevertheless, these do become part of the base oil and they reduce the overall base-oil quality. So, the base-oil-quality index still represents the quality of the overall base oil, including any volatile oils and compounds coming from the additive package. Therefore, the BOQI is a reliable measure even when the additive package affects the NOACK.
 

Gokhan

Thread starter
Messages
5,318
Location
Paramount, California
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: 4WD
Redline tends to go with ester - and why can't they use GII+ as add pack carrier?
Group II, III, IV, and GTL base stocks are "dry" oils. They need a "wet" base stock, which means that it has high solvency and lubricity: Base oils: solubility and lubricity
On why Group I but not Group II is used, an excerpt from the excellent article by Dr. Boris Zhmud and Michel Roegiers I linked above: Severely hydrotreated base oils, as well as GTL (gas-to-liquid) base stocks and PAO (polyalphaolefins), are often regarded as "dry" base oils because they only contain fully saturated nonpolar hydrocarbon (isoparaffin) molecules. ... Retro-blend with Group I base stocks. Improvements in solvency and lubricity come at a price of deteriorating the viscosity index, NOACK volatility, pour point, antioxidant response, and health-safety and environmental (HSE) profile.
 

4WD

Messages
15,959
Location
Texas
I mentioned GII - Only this quote mentioned GIII+ and GIV - go to one of the bigger sellers of base stock website ...
 

Gokhan

Thread starter
Messages
5,318
Location
Paramount, California
Originally Posted By: 4WD
I mentioned GII - Only this quote mentioned GIII+ and GIV - go to one of the bigger sellers of base stock website ...
No, Group II and Group III are both hydrotreated. The article would have also added Group II as a solvency improver otherwise. It's also mentioned later in the article that Group I is superior in lubricity to Groups II, III, and IV as well. In fact just read the first three paragraph in the article. Group I is special in terms of having superior solvency and lubricity.
 
Top