Just to add some fuel to the fire here, the oil I tested came out of the Old style of plastic bottle, don't think that the molybdenum came from the bottle though. I will run a virgin sample of the oil, hopefully tomorrow.
Mobil Drive Clean 10/30
- Thread starter dragboat
- Start date
- Status
I sent Mobil an e-mail asking about this subject last week and have recieved no response.
I also sent in a virgin M1 0W40 sample. I wonder what it will look like. Should have the results in 2 weeks.
I also sent in a virgin M1 0W40 sample. I wonder what it will look like. Should have the results in 2 weeks.
Bob, your comment "But, the term film strength is so loosly used and becomes confusing as to me and many others this is the seperation of two mating surfaces with a film of oil, and synth's do not hold up any better in that senerio any better than a good dino."
I must repeat my previous post regarding the use of full synthetic oil in all turbine engines. The bearings in these engines turn at 28,000 +/- rpm continuously and exert incredible centrifugal loading at these rotational speeds. The lubricant is a simple 5W/10W oil with little or no additization yet provides incredible "film strength". i.e. keeping 2 metals away from one another incredibly well. There are no Quaker State decals on the side of turbine engines you fly on as, simply, the film strenght of even the highest quality mineral based oils does not equal the requirements. This was one of the U.S. major deficiencies in early jet engine reliability; we used very high quality mineral based oils and our bearings failed with regularity.
George Morrison
[ September 03, 2002, 07:06 PM: Message edited by: GeorgeCLS ]
I must repeat my previous post regarding the use of full synthetic oil in all turbine engines. The bearings in these engines turn at 28,000 +/- rpm continuously and exert incredible centrifugal loading at these rotational speeds. The lubricant is a simple 5W/10W oil with little or no additization yet provides incredible "film strength". i.e. keeping 2 metals away from one another incredibly well. There are no Quaker State decals on the side of turbine engines you fly on as, simply, the film strenght of even the highest quality mineral based oils does not equal the requirements. This was one of the U.S. major deficiencies in early jet engine reliability; we used very high quality mineral based oils and our bearings failed with regularity.
George Morrison
[ September 03, 2002, 07:06 PM: Message edited by: GeorgeCLS ]
They did not address the question, but here was their response.
MolaKule
Staff member
"I believe the reason why synthetic formulations "appear" thinner is because of the higher film strengths of synthetics. In other words, take two fluids with the same viscosity, but if one has a higher film strength, the one with the higher film strength will appear slightly thinner than the one that has the lower film strength AT THE SAME viscosity."
Bob,
What I am offering is what appears to me to be a good explanation of a fluid's "apparent" thickness with actual measured viscosity, in light of further study. As of right now, I do not know with 100% surity that that this is the correct correlation. There may be a correlation and there may not be. I am in the process of attempting to determine which ASTM standard is used to determine film strength, and then go from there.
[ September 03, 2002, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]
Bob,
What I am offering is what appears to me to be a good explanation of a fluid's "apparent" thickness with actual measured viscosity, in light of further study. As of right now, I do not know with 100% surity that that this is the correct correlation. There may be a correlation and there may not be. I am in the process of attempting to determine which ASTM standard is used to determine film strength, and then go from there.
[ September 03, 2002, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]
VaderSS, I'd be surprised if you ever got a straight answer from Mobil...
MolaKule
Staff member
Bob, The additive packages were comparable in terms of ppm of constiuents.
"The second notch I was reffering to is this, on the molecular level, you're looking at Carbon and Hydrogen chains. The difference in the structure of a dino, vs the synth is the assembly of these chains therefore one has a better ability of resisting oxygen molecules from destroying these chains correct? (try and keep in simple and don't spout off chemistry 301 please)."
I am trying to find a good definition or explanation that ties hydrodynamic film stength to molecular film strength, if there is a correlation between the two or not.
I always thought film strength was defined as the pressure required to squeeze an oil film from between two parallel plates in a special fixture, per an ASTM test procedure.
Dragboat,
Power and Torque are related as:
Example: The power output of a Toyota Supra is 200 hp at 6000 rpm. What is the corresponding torque (twisting force)? P = 1.49 x 10^3 Watts; rotational speed = 200 pi rads/s; so t = P/ rotational speed = 237 N.m.
"The second notch I was reffering to is this, on the molecular level, you're looking at Carbon and Hydrogen chains. The difference in the structure of a dino, vs the synth is the assembly of these chains therefore one has a better ability of resisting oxygen molecules from destroying these chains correct? (try and keep in simple and don't spout off chemistry 301 please)."
I am trying to find a good definition or explanation that ties hydrodynamic film stength to molecular film strength, if there is a correlation between the two or not.
I always thought film strength was defined as the pressure required to squeeze an oil film from between two parallel plates in a special fixture, per an ASTM test procedure.
Dragboat,
Power and Torque are related as:
Example: The power output of a Toyota Supra is 200 hp at 6000 rpm. What is the corresponding torque (twisting force)? P = 1.49 x 10^3 Watts; rotational speed = 200 pi rads/s; so t = P/ rotational speed = 237 N.m.
This is what I have been trying to establish as many want to think that when someone states "because of the higher film strengths of synthetics" it is assumed they are reffering to the hydrodynamic film when in reality, it is the molecular bonding on the molecular level that is superior, not hydrodynamic.
There is no argument about synth's base oil has a better chemical bond and this is supported by the fact extended drains are achived easier with a synth vs a standard dino. But, the term film strength is so loosly used and becomes confusing as to me and many others this is the seperation of two mating surfaces with a film of oil, and synth's do not hold up any better in that senerio any better than a good dino. This is because film strength is based on film thickness and thickness is based on viscosity which is based on flow properties, all of which create the hydrodynamic film between two surfaces.
I am not close to either Molakules level or Bob's towards all aspects of oils,but this goes full circle back to a racers needs of a thick hydrodynamic film of oil to withstand the "shock' of some engines,especially a roller cranked one.
So,whatcha think about the actual post? Where did the moly go?
So,whatcha think about the actual post? Where did the moly go?
Jason, I would expect that if you asked Schaeffer or any oil company the same question you would get pretty much the same answer. They are all very protective of their work, their products and don't want to give the competition even the remotest insight as to their formulations...
George
George
George has pretty well nailed this one between the eyes. It's not just oil; email Coca-Cola & ask them just what those secret ingredients are, & see what kind of answer you get. I'd like to see the oil co's be more forthcoming too, but suspect it won't happen anytime soon.
Brad,
if your still out there your question about the oils base oils will soon be answered in terms of a anaylisis of each other,same car,same miles. I pulled the Pennzoil out early to be able to test the Drive Clean in same weather/driving conditions back to back,yep purged crankcase and wasted a filter and all
edited to add these two formulated oils will be compared,as there are many ways to make a oil as Molakule has wrote,Mola you should write a book.
[ September 08, 2002, 08:05 AM: Message edited by: dragboat ]
if your still out there your question about the oils base oils will soon be answered in terms of a anaylisis of each other,same car,same miles. I pulled the Pennzoil out early to be able to test the Drive Clean in same weather/driving conditions back to back,yep purged crankcase and wasted a filter and all
edited to add these two formulated oils will be compared,as there are many ways to make a oil as Molakule has wrote,Mola you should write a book.
[ September 08, 2002, 08:05 AM: Message edited by: dragboat ]
Sounds good Dragboat, I look forward to reading it.
i just used mobil drive clean. man how confused i am in reading ur stuff. i thought it would be better than most of the penziol and castrol. whats soo bad about mobil that makes u want to use penziol or castrol?? this is a good oil in my case...but i mixed it with 1 qt of syntetic blend. so really im running a 10%syntetic system (ideally..) heeh more like .01%. but i want mobil 1 products! and not syntetic. i say it burns fine..smoother sounding than my castrol. i was reading ur guyses posts and someone said that there is missing some chemicals?? if so then how long should i keep it in my engine?? help.
drifter,
No telling how long you can keep your home brew in your car. It might be really good or very bad and possible in between . It would be best to have your oil looked at through analysis if you continue this home brew approach in my Okie opinion.
Your question about the moly can be answered in that it was questioned where the Moly was in the Virgin sample compared to the 8k run of the oil in a motor with a used oil anaylis,,answer is it was never in the formulation at all.The moly came from another source imo.
Don't get wrapped up into thinking the Drive Clean Dino is not a good oil because it is a good OTC oil imo but your miles per drain interval will vary from engine design to engine condition and driving styles within the same design.Some OTC SL oils might slightly be better in protection and longer intervals. Ya just have to try them in your motor to see. At 3k, doubt there would be a huge difference unless in a performance motor of some kind or a non performance motor ran like one
No telling how long you can keep your home brew in your car. It might be really good or very bad and possible in between . It would be best to have your oil looked at through analysis if you continue this home brew approach in my Okie opinion.
Your question about the moly can be answered in that it was questioned where the Moly was in the Virgin sample compared to the 8k run of the oil in a motor with a used oil anaylis,,answer is it was never in the formulation at all.The moly came from another source imo.
Don't get wrapped up into thinking the Drive Clean Dino is not a good oil because it is a good OTC oil imo but your miles per drain interval will vary from engine design to engine condition and driving styles within the same design.Some OTC SL oils might slightly be better in protection and longer intervals. Ya just have to try them in your motor to see. At 3k, doubt there would be a huge difference unless in a performance motor of some kind or a non performance motor ran like one
u are very true in all u said. im just a sceptic i guess. hehe. iono the smell of the oil is one that is more than castrol GTX. usually i can tel if my oil needs to be changed by how bad the exaust smell is. this is the first times that im changing oil around 3000miles. ill stick with this stuff for now. i like the smoothness of the oil. ill probably start looking into those oil analysis things. thanks man.
hehe cool..glad to hear...i thought i felt like a person who just loves to post things..im just really interested in this kinda stuff...
I have my comparative 10W30 spreadsheets at work, but if memory serves me right my lowly SuperTech dino. looks quite a bit better than Drive Clean on the spec. side. I assumed that with the group I and beefed up additive package that the moniker really meant something and that the detergent package made up for the low temp. points.
- Status