Lucas UCL vs. TCW3 rated 2 cycle oil

[michael007]

Do you know the technical reason why ASTM D6079 had to be modified for this instance? Two reasons really, and both are significant.

I see the test was originally intended for diesel but hopefully you can enlighten us as I have no experience in this field.

All I could find was this study by Shell and Afton which seems to corroborate the technique used by Amsoil's 3rd party lab.

"Gasoline fuel lubricity is key to reducing wear and energy losses from friction in engines. The High-Frequency Reciprocating Rig (HFRR) test protocol recommended for gasoline fuels has been modified to evaluate the wear and friction properties of additized fuels. Adapted from the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D6079 test for diesel lubricity and literature-based procedures developed for gasoline fuels, the protocol and hardware used in this study allow for differentiation of fuels with unique additive chemistries and varying additive treat rates (EPA-approved lowest additive concentration, LAC, or higher). Supplementing HFRR tests, measurements of acoustic emissions corroborate friction coefficient trends using different additized fuels. Anti-wear performance of fuels during engine tests was characterized by roller-follower pin wear and metal concentration in engine oil, further distinguishing LAC from alternate additized fuels. The engine tests and acoustic emissions measurements support HFRR observations that gasoline fuels with varying additive chemistries and concentrations can offer enhanced lubricity compared to fuels additized with basic LAC additives."
from: https://saemobilus.sae.org/content/04-13-01-0002/

 

[Jetronic]

HFRR testing is done for diesels at 60Cin an open cup, but that would quickly evaporate all gasoline fuel keeping only the UCL in the sample

 

[michael007]

HFRR testing is done for diesels at 60Cin an open cup, but that would quickly evaporate all gasoline fuel keeping only the UCL in the sample

According to this PDF which describes the ASTM method in detail, there are two standard temperatures that can be used in D6079 by the HFRR

25 or 60°C

https://www.amspecllc.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/amspectechtalk-dieselfuellubricity.pdf

They say the test is for 75mins.

If I google gasoline evaporation rates -
In two-hour tests at temperatures near 70°F, during which 4.5 to 5.3 wt% of initial fuel samples were evaporated, E10 fuels lost an average of about 5% less gasoline than their base fuels. A similar result was obtained for a one-hour test, during which about 2.4 to 2.5 wt% of the initial fuel samples were evaporated.

70F is 21.11C so if the lower temperature is chosen, the evaporation loss would be negligible?

 

[Jetronic]

yes, but the wear scar diameter for diesel fuels needs to be less than 460 or 520 micrometer at 60 degrees.

 

[michael007]

yes, but the wear scar diameter for diesel fuels needs to be less than 460 or 520 micrometer at 60 degrees.

Sure but what does that have to do with the topic of conversation which is measuring scar diameter for gasoline fuels? Not trying to be rude or a smartass by the way with that question, I'm genuinely interested.

According to the pdf, ultra low sulfer diesel from the refinery has a wear scar of 600+ microns. To pass ASTM D6079, the maximum wear scar is 520 microns and in Europe it should be 460 microns.

If they adapt the test for gasoline and do it at 70F for 75mins, would the results not be significant?

Amsoil is not advertising that their UCL passed ASTM D6079 so the diesel standards for wear would not be relevant.

What is relevant is it's performance compared to standard E10 gasoline or E10 with competitor's products added in like Lucas UCL.

 

[Jetronic]

What is relevant is that they tried to go higher temp aswell for diesel fuel but it didn't work. The fuel thickens a lot due to evaporation, even the slow evaporating diesel. That produced smaller wear scars vs lower temperatures.

Other than that I don't know what Amsoil tried to show (besides favourable numbers) or what they changed in the test. I don't see what the WSD has to do with upper cylinder lubrication as the fuel part definitely evaporates in an engine, and maybe some of the UCL makes it to the cylinder wall

 

[kschachn]

Lubricity of gasoline is a non-issue, and is generally promoted by those selling an "upper cylinder lubricant" despite there being nothing in the upper cylinder that needs additional lubrication from the fuel. The whole thing borders on a hoax and this is the primary reason there is no ASTM test for gasoline.

 

[michael007]

Lubricity of gasoline is a non-issue, and is generally promoted by those selling an "upper cylinder lubricant" despite there being nothing in the upper cylinder that needs additional lubrication from the fuel. The whole thing borders on a hoax and this is the primary reason there is no ASTM test for gasoline.

I came across this letter to the editor in the amsoil dealer magazine:

Q: Upper Cylinder Lubricant is the first product AMSOIL has released since I became a Dealer that I cannot identify a clear benefit for. We sell Signature Series engine oil on the basis of benefits, and AMSOIL went to great lengths in training documentation to encourage Dealers to focus on what the product does, not what it is. On this note, I still can’t figure out what Upper Cylinder Lubricant does. I even reached out to [email protected], and their responses did not provide any additional information. They mentioned some light detergency that would keep injectors clean and possibly clean up some piston deposits or keep them clean, but that was a secondary benefit and it was weaker than P.i.® Furthermore, I’m told that MMT, already in gasoline, also acts as a lubricant and is used in even higher concentrations than Upper Cylinder Lubricant would add.

A: Thanks for your letter, Andrei. Upper cylinder wear directly impacts the compression-ring-to-cylinder-wall interface, where oil has a hard time reaching. As the ring and wall wear, the seal formed by the ring weakens, resulting in compression loss that reduces power and efficiency over time. Upper Cylinder Lubricant helps vehicles maintain power and efficiency by providing improved wear protection for the ring-to-cylinder-wall interface, as well as the fuel pump and injectors. While many fuels contain a minimum level of lubricity, the quality and quantity of those additives can vary at each fill-up and are optimized for cost control, not maximum performance or engine life. Supplementing with Upper Cylinder Lubricant ensures you get the proper lubricity needed to maintain like-new performance and extend engine life. Published testing results show Upper Cylinder Lubricant provides 18% more lubricity than Lucas* Upper Cylinder Lubricant and 20% more than Sea Foam* Motor Treatment. In addition, Upper Cylinder Lubricant is the only AMSOIL gasoline additive designed to fight ethanol-related corrosion, and it helps keep injectors clean. For best results, use P.i. every 4,000 miles as a deep clean for the entire combustion chamber and use Upper Cylinder Lubricant at each fill-up to reduce wear, prevent corrosion and maintain injector cleanliness between P.i. treatments. Check out the Gasoline Additives Dealer Sales Brief in the Dealer Zone (Learning Center>Dealer Sales Briefs) for more information and comparisons between P.i and Upper Cylinder Lubricant.

 

[kschachn]

Yeah.

 

[michael007]

EDIT - I managed to get a copy of the Shell / Afton study on this topic

Click here to download a copy -
https://docdro.id/0c3v6ia

Alternative imgur link:

 

[Jetronic]

interesting to see that top tier doesn't offer anything regarding lubricity vs more regular gasoline. If you want to use the gasoline to add an additive to the oil I think that's a valid approach. You can certainly meter out how much your engine receives. Maybe gasoline DI pumps needs some lubricity from the fuel, it's nothing like a diesel common rail pump though.

 

[DGXR]

I was adding tcw3 also until I found out there is zddp in it.

Really? TCW3 oils are ashless and I understand zinc would leave some ash residue.

 

[Dave1027]

2007 TRX500 on 640:1 TC-W3.

View attachment 35991

This looks really impressive. Can you provide more back story about this pic?

 

[surfstar]

PIB is the additive used in Lucas UCL is used in some two stroke oils including TC-W3. PIB is a lot more concentrated in the Lucas though. Also the TW-W3 contains up to 40% petroleum solvent whereas the Lucas UCL has no solvent content listed. The Lucas is odorless while the two-strok oil does have a solvent smell. PIB is also a deposit-control additive used in gasoline. Here is a write-up on it from Chevron.

https://www.oronite.com/docs/exceptional-reliability_Polyisobutylene_ProductStewardshipSummary.pdf

Related note on PIBs:
A while back we discussed UHMW (ultra high molecular weight) PIB, as an mpg enhancer.

HMW polyisobutylene

I have been using a fuel additive made by GTA. It is a very, very high molecular weight polyisobutylene that came out of jet fuel anti-misting research. It is much higher molecular weight PIB than what is found in 2-stroke oils or in gear oils. It is actually higher MW than is found in chewing...

bobistheoilguy.com

Viscon; "The Holy Grail of Fuel Additives???"

Hey guys, I just made this post in the "Oil Additive" section, but from an earlier post on that thread, the whole thread should've been started here on the "Fuel Additive" section. Early discussion about VISCON on BITOG Anyway, someone had brought back the thread today before I did about the...

bobistheoilguy.com

I couldn't find it to be beneficial enough to justify the cost for use in a gasser. It supposedly helps diesels more. The PIB in Lucas UCL is more likely a cleaner and not an mpg enhancer.

 

[dblshock]

This looks really impressive. Can you provide more back story about this pic?

Sure, had run 640:1/E091 since new in '07 this was 2017, was in shop for new cam followers (known issue for this model) when I took these snaps...funny thing is it was running poorly as valve lash was adjusted out from the aforementioned...still pretty clean even though it ran crappy for weeks.

 

[Dave1027]

Sure, had run 640:1/E091 since new in '07 this was 2017, was in shop for new cam followers (known issue for this model) when I took these snaps...funny thing is it was running poorly as valve lash was adjusted out from the aforementioned...still pretty clean even though it ran crappy for weeks.

So, how many hours do you estimate were on the engine in that 10 year span?

 

[dblshock]

So, how many hours do you estimate were on the engine in that 10 year span?

425-450hrs./5,000mi. have many ATV's here and they'll avg. 12mph. or a bit less over time. this TRX500 is a single cylinder.

 

[Dave1027]

425-450hrs./5,000mi. have many ATV's here and they'll avg. 12mph. or a bit less over time. this TRX500 is a single cylinder.

That puts some perspective to it. The piston top should have been coated with black. I think your picture speaks volumes about the cleaning ability of 2 stroke oil in a 4stroke engine.

 

[demarpaint]

That puts some perspective to it. The piston top should have been coated with black. I think your picture speaks volumes about the cleaning ability of 2 stroke oil in a 4stroke engine.

It does, especially when you hear stories of people claiming it will coke up the rings. Judging from the picture posted by @dblshock, that sure doesn't look like the case.

 

[ChrisD46]

I am now finishing up my last gallon of Lucas UCL additive, been using it regularly for years although not on every tankful, about every 3-4 tanks I will use just straight gas. And I dose it on the lean side, about 0.75 ounce of additive for every 5 gallons of fuel. When the Lucas is used up, I will switch to TCW3 2-stroke oil as an additive because it contains more detergents and cleaners while still lubricating the fuel system and upper cylinder. Also it costs less than the Lucas. So I am curious to see how the TCW3 does. At these low dosage levels I am not at all concerned about the cats or any other potential ill effects... manufacturers say it's normal for engines to burn 1 quart every 1000 miles so I think we are OK here LOL.

*Using TCW3 in 4 cylinder engines at 640:1 was a bit too much for smaller engines, so I cut the ratio back 980:1 which was better ... Smoother , quieter idle , instant start up in any weather - little to no gain in gas mileage (too much at 640:1 it actually reduced gas mileage in 4 cylinder engines - 6 & 8 cylinder engines handles a 640:1 ratio much better) .