Molybdenum, Cam wear and Hemi tick

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: SR5

BTW 10+ year ago, the Castrol Magnatec data sheets clearly stated in writing that Magnatec contained Esters, and the reason was to attach themselves to the metal surface of the engine. The modern data sheets tell very little in comparison.

That's entirely consistent with discussions that I had over dinner with A Castrol Chemist (and Ingall)

 

[bigj_16]

Originally Posted By: Tom NJ

I agree with your priority on cost for such competitive markets. We know how to make a better oil but it's a waste of time if it won't sell. Some 20 years ago I formulated a military jet engine oil, which is still used in most military jets to this day. Having won and lost multi-million dollar bids by as little as a penny a quart, I set my three highest priorities as cost, cost, and cost. Naturally it had to meet the grueling specifications set forth by the military, but if I wanted to sell it the cost had to come down. As it turns out we made a superior oil for about 15% lower cost, and won every bid thereafter. Sometimes it works out that way. The problems with making superior motor oils are the competitive market, the high cost of certification, the lack of demand, and the inability to prove it is superior with the standard API engine tests designed for mineral oils. A few years ago a friend and I set out to formulate the best performing motor oil we could without regard for cost or certification. It contained three special esters totaling over 50% and the balance of the base oil state was a 5 cSt PAO (C12 olefin). We used it in our engines and got fine UOAs, but that proves nothing and it would have had to sell for $15/quart. Fortunately we did it just for fun and did not invest any money in it. With the current trend for low viscosity oils with high VI, high lubricity, and low volatility, POEs are ideally suited from a technical standpoint. Still I believe the oils will continue with Group III and GTLs with some PAO as needed for low temperature flow, rather than take advantage of POEs due to cost. Tom NJ

So, do you consider GTL's in thier own (unofficial) group?

 

[Tom NJ]

Technically GTLs fall under Group III, but since their VIs are over 130 they are considered Group III+ (yes the "+" is unofficial).

 

[bigj_16]

Originally Posted By: Tom NJ

Technically GTLs fall under Group III, but since their VIs are over 130 they are considered Group III+ (yes the "+" is unofficial).

Thanx!

 

[bbhero]

I may well be wrong but I think Super S has 10% of this put in it for this reason. To help get NOACK down below 15%.. Which it does rather well. Again, I could be wrong but it could well be the case.

 

[zeng]

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe

It's been close to 35 years since I did any serious fluid dynamics number crunching but I am wondering to myself if denser Redline oil is creating higher oil pressure than oils of a similar viscosity? From what I've read, Polyol Ester base oils are by design, more polar than 'normal' base stocks. I suspect it's that polarity that pulls the molecules closer together to create a higher density liquid (a bit like hydrogen-bonding in water). Now your oil pump is, for any given speed, designed to shift a fixed VOLUME of oil. However, if you compare pure PAO 6 and Hatcol 2352, if, for the sake of argument, your oil pump is moving 1 litre/minute of oil, you will be moving 827 grams/minute of PAO but 963 g/m of Polyol Ester. If I remember my basic kinetic physics, the power draw on the pump will be based on the WEIGHT of oil shifted, not the volume. Likewise the kinetic energy transferred to the oil will be higher for the denser oil. Now given that for a given full oil circuit, all the kinetic energy in both oils must be fully dissipated, it sort of follows that the 'extra' energy in the Polyol Ester might manifest itself as higher oil pressure (?).

I would say yes .... in increased operating pressure , as a result of increased power at constant flow .

 

[Shannow]

Yep, volume shift is constant, power has a density component (that's missing from the above, as most of the simplistic stuff is water based). So shaft power rises with the denser oils for a given volume moved. Now squirters are a pressure/density device, so should flow less volume, or require greater pressure to move the same volume. Bearings flow oil in relation to the bearing characteristic number which is related to u, the Kinematic viscosity, or in other systems, vp where v is dynamic viscosity, p density....so the flow due to bearing rotation is independent of density where kinematic viscosity is used. There's SOME flow due to gallery pressure, and this will behave like the squirter example give or take. So YES, denser oil will manifest slightly higher oil pressure.

 

[KevinP]

There is a high-end of any market. Motor Oil seems like a fairly crowded one already and Amsoil and Redline and such serve that niche. But I imagine it doesn't take much to buy most of these components and mix your own flavor. It would be cool to have a specialty shop that allowed you to buy tailored oil mixtures. How hard is it to use metering pumps, a scale and sell one-off custom mixes of oil? Sure it would be expensive but there are plenty of people with hundreds of thousands invested in automobiles. For those people cost is no object.

 

[SonofJoe]

Originally Posted By: SR5

Quote:

Has anyone seriously considered using POE in cheap Group II 5W30s as a simple Noack trim or as a counter to the very poor solvency of these oils

Isn't this fundamentally what products like Castrol Magnatec are ? Sure it's started out as a Group II & Group III semi-synthetic with Esters as the "intelligent" polar molecule. I believe the formula has evolved into a Group III full-syn with AN. But same basic idea. BTW 10+ year ago, the Castrol Magnatec data sheets clearly stated in writing that Magnatec contained Esters, and the reason was to attach themselves to the metal surface of the engine. The modern data sheets tell very little in comparison.

For my sins, I used to do GTX & Magnatec. So I know (or knew) the answer to that question. However for reasons of confidentiality, I can't say. Sorry.

 

[SonofJoe]

Originally Posted By: Shannow

Yep, volume shift is constant, power has a density component (that's missing from the above, as most of the simplistic stuff is water based). So shaft power rises with the denser oils for a given volume moved. Now squirters are a pressure/density device, so should flow less volume, or require greater pressure to move the same volume. Bearings flow oil in relation to the bearing characteristic number which is related to u, the Kinematic viscosity, or in other systems, vp where v is dynamic viscosity, p density....so the flow due to bearing rotation is independent of density where kinematic viscosity is used. There's SOME flow due to gallery pressure, and this will behave like the squirter example give or take. So YES, denser oil will manifest slightly higher oil pressure.

Shannow/Zeng, Many thanks for this. The other thing that occurred to me is that if you compare two oils, one Group II and the other POE, of equal Kinematic Viscosity at 100°C, then the denser Ester based oil will have a significantly higher Dynamic Viscosity at 100°C. I could imagine how this might generate a higher oil pressure for the POE-based oil. The reason I focussed on this ester density / oil pressure thing is because it seems to me that many drivers prefer a higher oil pressure and dislike the fact that modern thin, fuel economy oils (eg 0W20/5W20) naturally yield lower oil pressures. POEs might be a way these drivers could have their cake and eat it by using thin oils which generate higher oil pressure.

 

[zeng]

Originally Posted By: zeng

I would say yes .... in increased operating pressure , as a result of increased power at constant flow .

Putting it in another way round, P = F/A; F = M x a; M = rho x V; P = Pressure F = Force A = Area of force acting M = Mass a = acceleration of liquid mass rho = liquid density V = liquid volume Hence, P = M x a /A P = rho x V x a /A In SoJ's scenario of constant volume flow above : Liquids volume V , acceleration a and area A upon which liquid force acting are constant; Therefore, P = rho x constant C. i.e liquid pressure P is proportional to liquid density rho. At constant volumetric flow rate, Power draw is proportional to liquid density rho. Edit: Oops miss your post, SoJ.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe

Shannow/Zeng, Many thanks for this. The other thing that occurred to me is that if you compare two oils, one Group II and the other POE, of equal Kinematic Viscosity at 100°C, then the denser Ester based oil will have a significantly higher Dynamic Viscosity at 100°C. I could imagine how this might generate a higher oil pressure for the POE-based oil. The reason I focussed on this ester density / oil pressure thing is because it seems to me that many drivers prefer a higher oil pressure and dislike the fact that modern thin, fuel economy oils (eg 0W20/5W20) naturally yield lower oil pressures. POEs might be a way these drivers could have their cake and eat it by using thin oils which generate higher oil pressure.

Good thoughts...HTHS is dynamic viscosity, so you are probably onto something. Not sure how big/small 'though. CATERHAM has (correctly) correlated oil pressure to HTHS viscosity with quite reasonable accuracy in his Astra engine. And it fits quite well with the early experiments where they were investigating the "apparent" viscosity of multigrades, where they didn't protect as well as a similar KV100 monograde. In that case, they held pressure constant, and measured flow rate through a main bearing.

 

[Ramblejam]

Originally Posted by burla

All findings good or bad should be posted.

Have an older, higher-mileage Hemi. Runs great with various 0w-40's in the sump (Mobil 1, Non-SRT Pennzoil), but the TICK-TICK-TICK was very apparent - enough so that someone unaware of Hemi idiosyncrasies would think the engine had a mechanical issue. Made the switch to Red Line 5w-30 and that same tick is now imperceptible. Seriously, folks. Is this stuff relatively expensive? Sure, but it's coming out of the same bank account as everything else you purchase in life, and in that grand scheme of things, it's small potatoes for how dramatic the difference was. Thank you Burla for bringing this info to us.

 

[burla]

Brother, that is why I do what I do, every time I help someone have the same effect as myself, that is the juice for me. It is a nice surprise when someone has this experience. you are welcome

 

[CR94]

Originally Posted by Ramblejam

... the TICK-TICK-TICK was very apparent - enough so that someone unaware of Hemi idiosyncrasies would think the engine had a mechanical issue. ...

OK, I'll bite. What specifically causes "Hemi-tick," if not a "mechanical issue"?

 

[burla]

I'm not sure we have an answer, but you can listen to another member like this guy who documented it and videod it so you can hear for yourself. His follow up at 1700 miles was butter smooth. Something in the formula gets better as it goes, some type of plate likely is happening. another member documented redline killing hemi tick.

 

[burla]

Listen to his video's, eye opening that just using a different oil formula will do that, and yet is has happened over 30 times documented over 1.3 replies.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by Ramblejam

Originally Posted by burla

All findings good or bad should be posted.

Have an older, higher-mileage Hemi. Runs great with various 0w-40's in the sump (Mobil 1, Non-SRT Pennzoil), but the TICK-TICK-TICK was very apparent - enough so that someone unaware of Hemi idiosyncrasies would think the engine had a mechanical issue. Made the switch to Red Line 5w-30 and that same tick is now imperceptible. Seriously, folks. Is this stuff relatively expensive? Sure, but it's coming out of the same bank account as everything else you purchase in life, and in that grand scheme of things, it's small potatoes for how dramatic the difference was. Thank you Burla for bringing this info to us.

This is great to hear! I have a question, and, I may have asked it before, but given the scope of 0w-40 use (and the fact it is the OEM grade for the SRT), has anybody tested the Redline 0w-40? They aren't all that far off from each other viscosity-wise, so it would be interesting to see if the results are the same, since it would leverage lighter bases and more VII vs the 5w-30.

 

[burla]

So oddly enough what we have with a limited number of responses in this area, as the 6.4 group is smaller then the 5.7 is, the 0w40 Redline is decent at killing ticks, oddly enough better then the 10w40. The theory is that for whatever reason Redline uses a much different base oil for their 10w40 and 10w30, as both of these do not seam to kill ticks as good as the 5 winter rated oils. WE currently have those guys moving over to 5w40 to see if the same thing holds true as the 5w30 versus 10w30 that we have some info on. To soon to say but it looks like the 0w40 actually kills ticks better then the 10w40. Perhaps Redline uses something in their 10 winter rated oils i the spirit of the HM crowd, I don't know, but they are less then 5 winter rated oils in hths, and you can hear the difference in these finicky engines. Most guys are simply running the 5w30 due to the over whelming success of that weight. Other weights all help the tick, or lessen the effect of the tick, but 5w30 has simply killed those ticks for good. The getting guys to move to 5w40 is a new thing, specifically guys with the 6.4 that have the tick, likely wont have real updates for 6 mos to a year. One specific member was going to do it but he opted to run 0w40 again to use up his old stock. There just aren't that many guys with the 6.4 in the program so we don't know. No reason for guys with mds to be so bold as to go to 5w40 when 5w30 is doing what it is doing.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by burla

So oddly enough what we have with a limited number of responses in this area, as the 6.4 group is smaller then the 5.7 is, the 0w40 Redline is decent at killing ticks, oddly enough better then the 10w40. The theory is that for whatever reason Redline uses a much different base oil for their 10w40 and 10w30, as both of these do not seam to kill ticks as good as the 5 winter rated oils. WE currently have those guys moving over to 5w40 to see if the same thing holds true as the 5w30 versus 10w30 that we have some info on. To soon to say but it looks like the 0w40 actually kills ticks better then the 10w40. Perhaps Redline uses something in their 10 winter rated oils i the spirit of the HM crowd, I don't know, but they are less then 5 winter rated oils in hths, and you can hear the difference in these finicky engines. Most guys are simply running the 5w30 due to the over whelming success of that weight. Other weights all help the tick, or lessen the effect of the tick, but 5w30 has simply killed those ticks for good. The getting guys to move to 5w40 is a new thing, specifically guys with the 6.4 that have the tick, likely wont have real updates for 6 mos to a year. One specific member was going to do it but he opted to run 0w40 again to use up his old stock. There just aren't that many guys with the 6.4 in the program so we don't know. No reason for guys with mds to be so bold as to go to 5w40 when 5w30 is doing what it is doing.

So, based on this, would you say the 0w-40 is as effective as the 5w-30? Since you seem to indicate that the 0w-40 is better than the 10w-30 and 10w-40. I do find it interesting, as the 0w-40 is a bit heavier, but not much, than the typical 0w-40, whilst the 5w-30 is more like BMW's 5w-30 and other euro versions in terms of viscometrics.