Lubrication Engineers 8130?

[Kevin Dinwiddie]

Rgiles,
Sorry no info on the supersyn, however additive package is most likely similar to tri syn.

Ssmokn,
Glad to hear from you also. LE 9920 is a great oil! Glad you like it.

KD

 

[The_Oz]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kevin Dinwiddie:
LE uses the SRV and 4-ball tests when evaluating their gear oils for wear and EP capabilities. Below are the reasons why LE had decided on using those specific tests. As you can see LE is not the only company that uses the SRV test.

In an article called "Machines and Methodologies for Testing Extreme Pressure and Anti-Wear Properties of Lubricants" Test machines are evaluated to find the best type of tester.

Group 1 Stationary Point of Contact
These are rigs in which the point of contact is stationary on one of the surfaces. They all have simple specimen geometries. Examples include;
Falex
4-Ball
Timken
Reichert

In his conclusion he said, "Group 1 machines (4-ball, Falex, Timken, Reichert) do not provide an adequate emulation or simulation of real contacts subject to boundary or mixed lubrication regimes. It is not necessary to emulate the mechanics of the contact in order to provide an adequate bench test simulation for assessment of lubricant/additive performance. A third generic group of bench test machines is identified. These machines are primarily simulators and not emulators. These machines provide better experimental control and more flexibility than the latter two Groups. This allows greater insight into the processes taking place within the contact zone."

He further states that " The capabilities of the test machine groups can be summarized as follows;"
Machines
Real Contacts Emulated-Real Contacts Simulated
Group 1 Nil--Nil
Group 2 Gear Cam/Follower--Nil
Group 3 Ring/Liner--Gear Cam/Follower

This shows that LE uses the latest, most reliable and accurate tests available anywhere today.

---

Kevin,

Forgive my ignorance as I am not a tribologist by any means, but I am confused with your statements. I believe LM was trying find info regarding the validity of the Falex test. Having read your statements (and perhaps wrongfully....

), you are quoting an article that's stating that the Falex does not emulate nor simulate anything that happens in an engine. Yet, you said that LE uses some of the most reliable, accurate tests within the industry, and are still relaying info regarding Falex test results. How about any SRV results? I guess I'll search the LE site for that

If the Falex is not a good indication in how well an oil holds up under boundary or mixed-film lubrication, then what does that tell us about LE oils?

Just needs some clarification.

Thanks,

Oz

 

[Giles]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kevin Dinwiddie:
Rgiles,
Sorry no info on the supersyn, however additive package is most likely similar to tri syn.
KD

---

The analysis done by people on this site shows M1 with SuperSyn contains Moly, and the Tri-Syn did not.

 

[Patman]

Not only that, but TriSynthetic had a lot of magnesium in it while SuperSyn has little or none. I think their additive packages are quite a bit different actually.

 

[Kevin Dinwiddie]

Hi Oz,
First I hope I understand you question. You are wondering why LE uses the Falex test on their engine oils when it is in the group 1 test group which seems to not be the best type of test. If this is correct then I can help you understand why it seems to be that way. In this paragraph they talk about "boundary or mixed lubrication regimes" They did not talk about Hydrodynamic lubrication (a system of lubrication in which the shape and relative motion of the sliding surfaces causes the formation of a fluid film having sufficient pressure to separate the surfaces). Boundry and mixed lubrication regimes are more prevelant in gear oil or rolling bearing applications, and as such one would be better off using the SRV bench test. For engine oils the Falex test (Hydrodynamic lubrication) is not only a good test but very accurate at one loading tooth equal to .0000556 of wear at the test pin and vee blocks. The test can also be done at different levels of pressure. The LE tests were done at 350lb for a five minute break-in-peroid and then increased to 600lb and maintained for the 15 min test. Some of the oils that failed siezed so I guess that might be more than hydrodynamic, heck that's more than boundry.

This was what was posted in an above post. In his conclusion he said, "Group 1 machines (4-ball, Falex, Timken, Reichert) do not provide an adequate emulation or simulation of real contacts subject to boundary or mixed lubrication regimes. It is not necessary to emulate the mechanics of the contact in order to provide an adequate bench test simulation for assessment of lubricant/additive performance. A third generic group of bench test machines is identified. These machines are primarily simulators and not emulators. These machines provide better experimental control and more flexibility than the latter two Groups. This allows greater insight into the processes taking place within the contact zone."

Boundry Lubrication is a condition of lubrication in which the friction between two surfaces in relative motion is determined by the properties of the surfaces and by the properties of the lubricant other than viscosity or (extreme pressure additive like in gear oils).

Your comment,
If the Falex is not a good indication in how well an oil holds up under boundary or mixed-film lubrication, then what does that tell us about LE oils?

Answer,
There are a lot of oils that did not even pass the Falex test-they failed. They failed under what might seem like only Hydrodynamic film testing. What does that tell you about the other oils that failed or had more wear than the LE oils? I guess that tells us that LE oils are much better than the other oils.

There are 37,000 chemical makeups for just a parafin base oil, then there is napthenic, and many synthetics. LE uses the best types of base oils. These base oils are selected to match the additive chem so that they work better together, they spare no $ in the quality of the additives but select them just for quality. If another company used the same types of base oils, had them processed the same way and as many times as LE does, used the same additive package as LE does, they would still fall short of the LE products. LE uses Monolec in their engine oils, hyd oils, rock drill oils, etc. Monolec is an anit-wear, friction reducing, self regenerating anti-oxidant. Since LE does not sell Monolec to any other company and it is only used in LE products then LE would have less wear and better oxidation resistance than other oils would. This Monolec is above and beyond a very robust additive package that far exceeds what normal oils use.

Hope I have helped you understand and I hope I understood what you were asking about.

KD

 

[Kevin Dinwiddie]

Rgiles and Patman,
I stand corected you are right. We might have to test the supersyn to see how it stands up. Thanks for the heads-up.

KD

 

[Kevin Dinwiddie]

LM, 8130 has not been re-submitted to API since it was introduced as a CH-4, SH oil. It has 1,300 ppm phos and would not pass the min phos level for gas only engines of (1,000 ppm phos). There are some types of phos that will not hurt a cat conv, LE is a safe one, however API still will not approve an oil as SL if it has more than 1,000 ppm of phos. So the 8130 was not re-submitted to API. This does not mean that the 8130 is a poor oil as some here have said. I have a gas engine 2001 Dodge 4.7, V8 double overhead cam engine and the oil that I use is LE 8130. As you might know, I have the results to many types and viscosities of oils that are on the market, I have picked the 8130 for my use. This 8130 is a blend (syn petro)

The 8800 15w-40 is a petro oil CH-4, SJ. It also has more than 1,000 ppm of phos, however the 15w-40 grade is not subject to any maximums of phos.

The 8530 5w-30 is a blend (syn petro) GF-3, SL gas only oil.

The 8130 was tested on TFOUT and Falex as 6-Falex and 480 TFOUT.

The new data on 8800 is 3 Falex and 311 TFOUT.

The new data on 8530 is 5-Falex and 518 TFOUT.

For comparison on the 8530
Penn syn blend 142-fail
Penn pure base 139-12
Valv durablend 202-10
Exxon superflow 178-fail
Quaker 167-22
Castrol GTX 114-26
Castrol Syntec 189-11
Mobil 1 tri syn 350-12

As you can see the LE 8530 oil has 1/2 the specific wear rate combined with 168 minutes higher oxidation resistance than any of the other oils tested, even syntec and mobil-1 tri syn.

Hope this helps
KD

 

[Giles]

Kevin,

Do you have any results for Mobil 1 SuperSyn that you can share? Tri-Syn results are interesting, but it's no longer available as an oil.

 

[ssmokn]

Hey Oilman long time no chat. I used to chat with you on one of the Ford Diesel boards a while back. The LE 75W150 synthetic gear lube has been serving me well in my F350 and a few other applications as well.

Hope all is well with you.

Cliff

 

[Pops]

I am having trouble understanding the number values reposted below. For example Chevrom failed with a high number. Some look to have a lower number and a higher number or are they just one large number like 17267 instead of 17 267 ?

Thank you for posting this information . I wish more of this type was available for us to see

The oxidation test simulates the effects of an oil in our engines. The higher number shows an oils ability to resist oxidation for longer
periods.

[Most of these appear to be mid to heavier viscs]

OIL PASS/FAIL TEETH TFOUT
Amoco Premier Fail ------- 265
Cat Diesel Fail ------- 209
Chevron Delo 400 Fail ------- 342
Mobil Delvac 1300 Super Pass 18 258
Mystic JT-8 Fail ------- 148
Shaffer Supreme 7000 Fail ------- 253
Shell Rotella T Fail ------- 163
Premium Blue 2000 Fail ------- 291
Amoco 300 Fail ------- 209
Amsoil Pass 9 219
Case Fail ------- 190
Castrol RX Super Fail ------- 178
Citgo Ditgard 500 Fail ------- 222
Coastal Unilube Fleet Fail ------- 134
Bobil Delvac 1230 SAE 30 Fail ------- 107
Moper Fail ------- 121
Motorcraft Fail ------- 144
Mr. Goodwrench Pass 16 137
Pennzoil Long-life Pass 17 331
Shell Rimula Super HPDEO Pass 13 227
Shell Rimula-X HPDEO Fail ------- 86
Shell Rotella T SAE 30 Fail ------- 151
Tech 2000 Fail ------- 140
Total Rubia Diesel 4000 Fail ------- 130
Universal SHPD Pass 13 153
Premium Blue Pass 16 361
Castrol Syntec SAE 5w30 Pass 13 195
Castrol Super Fleet Pass 16 243
Mobil-1 Fail ------- 180
Lubrication Engineers 8800 Pass 5 323
Lubrication Engineers SAE 30 Pass 5 253

 

[jason07-1zzfe]

Pops, I think first is whether it passed or failed the Falex test, second is the Falex score. Lower is better. If it failed there is "-----" for the falex score. And then the TFOUT time follows that. Longer is better.

 

[Patman]

I just noticed that the TBN of the 5w30 is much lower than the other viscosities? So would that make the 5w30 less desirable for extended drains compared to the 10w30? Or is the TBN on the latest formula different now?

[ December 14, 2002, 07:04 AM: Message edited by: Patman ]

 

[LM]

Kevin - thanks again for the info.

As stated above, it seems the Falex Pin and V-block correlates fairly well to camshaft wear. I will also research more about the "Sequence IIIE" engine test, and what specific engine wear points this test (of so many) might address.

It seems the LE gas only oils also have very robust add pkgs like the LE CH-4 oils (probably an oversimplification & generalization).

 

[LM]

Kevin - don't mean to drag this thread on, as is a busy time for you. Just wanted to ask if 8130 carries any ACEA, ILSAC, foreign car manu (Mercedes, VW, Porsche, Japanese valve train, etc) specs?

 

[Greg]

guys, if you want to do preformatted lists please put them inside CODE tags so the formatting is kept.

example:

code:

---

list1 list2 list3

1 2 3

4 5 6

---

[ December 14, 2002, 02:12 PM: Message edited by: Greg ]

 

[Bighank]

We use LE products in all our equipment from

Faulk speed reducers to our lock machinery , gates

valves,lot of it under water and in our Deutz

diesel generator and the product and service are

outstanding. Most of the river sand & gravel

dredges us LE and are impressed.

 

[bretfraz]

This should be easier to read. Enjoy!

code:

---

OIL PASS/FAIL TEETH TFOUT

Amoco Premier Fail ------- 265

Cat Diesel Fail ------- 209

Chevron Delo 400 Fail ------- 342

Mobil Delvac 1300 Super Pass 18 258

Mystic JT-8 Fail ------- 148

Shaffer Supreme 7000 Fail ------- 253

Shell Rotella T Fail ------- 163

Premium Blue 2000 Fail ------- 291

Amoco 300 Fail ------- 209

Amsoil Pass 9 219

Case Fail ------- 190

Castrol RX Super Fail ------- 178

Citgo Ditgard 500 Fail ------- 222

Coastal Unilube Fleet Fail ------- 134

Bobil Delvac 1230 SAE 30 Fail ------- 107

Moper Fail ------- 121

Motorcraft Fail ------- 144

Mr. Goodwrench Pass 16 137

Pennzoil Long-life Pass 17 331

Shell Rimula Super HPDEO Pass 13 227

Shell Rimula-X HPDEO Fail ------- 86

Shell Rotella T SAE 30 Fail ------- 151

Tech 2000 Fail ------- 140

Total Rubia Diesel 4000 Fail ------- 130

Universal SHPD Pass 13 153

Premium Blue Pass 16 361

Castrol Syntec SAE 5w30 Pass 13 195

Castrol Super Fleet Pass 16 243

Mobil-1 Fail ------- 180

Lubrication Engineers 8800 Pass 5 323

Lubrication Engineers SAE 30 Pass 5 253

---

[ December 22, 2002, 09:46 PM: Message edited by: bretfraz ]

 

[dragboat]

quote:

---

Originally posted by bretfraz:

code:

---

OIL PASS/FAIL TEETH TFOUT

Amoco Premier Fail ------- 265

Cat Diesel Fail ------- 209

Chevron Delo 400 Fail ------- 342

Mobil Delvac 1300 Super Pass 18 258

Mystic JT-8 Fail ------- 148

Shaffer Supreme 7000 Fail ------- 253

Shell Rotella T Fail ------- 163

Premium Blue 2000 Fail ------- 291

Amoco 300 Fail ------- 209

Amsoil Pass 9 219

Case Fail ------- 190

Castrol RX Super Fail ------- 178

Citgo Ditgard 500 Fail ------- 222

Coastal Unilube Fleet Fail ------- 134

Bobil Delvac 1230 SAE 30 Fail ------- 107

Moper Fail ------- 121

Motorcraft Fail ------- 144

Mr. Goodwrench Pass 16 137

Pennzoil Long-life Pass 17 331

Shell Rimula Super HPDEO Pass 13 227

Shell Rimula-X HPDEO Fail ------- 86

Shell Rotella T SAE 30 Fail ------- 151

Tech 2000 Fail ------- 140

Total Rubia Diesel 4000 Fail ------- 130

Universal SHPD Pass 13 153

Premium Blue Pass 16 361

Castrol Syntec SAE 5w30 Pass 13 195

Castrol Super Fleet Pass 16 243

Mobil-1 Fail ------- 180

Lubrication Engineers 8800 Pass 5 323

Lubrication Engineers SAE 30 Pass 5 253

---

---

It is interesting the ones that failed and pssed this test

 

[Giles]

It's also interesting to note that whoever created these numbers left out the viscosity on most of the oils. I tend to discount information that leaves out an obvious piece of information.

 

[LM]

I'm fairly sure the numbers originally came from LE testing. I've got a table/jpeg on my computer, DL'ed from LE's site approx two months ago, that appears to be circa 2000: no oil brands or visc's listed (I must be missing an easy way to attach JPEGs, or is that for Mods only?).

Subsequently, there have been a few Google/Usenet (archived) posts wrt to LE oil, which have also made their way to other discussion forums.

Some/most appear to have been originated by LE employees and/or have notices within stating some sort of LE affiliation (do a search using "Lubrication Engineers 8800").

I agree - the viscosities should be more clearly specified.

Most, but not all of the oils, on the list above, were reportedly 15w40 (I haven't cross-checked the MSDSs), including the Amsoil, Premium Blue 2000, & Shaffer Supreme 7000. IIRC, the Delo, Penzoil LL, and Shell Rotella T are either 15W-40 or 5W-40

Another, less circulated (apparently also LE) test run, involved 5/10W-30s, where generally more oils passed, including some gas dino's.

Also, the failed Mobil 1 was 15W-50, while M1 10W-30 passed.

My initial hopes, as the OP, was to generate discussion of how valid/invalid Falex & TFout are as tests, as I was also intrigued as to why some very-well regarded oils didn't fare so well. Was looking to place the results into some sort of context.

Someone posted earlier seeing some exclt LE UOAs.

I have no affiliation with LE, but would like to find out more about 8130, and hope Kevin visits the board again.

Lance