More on base stocks and pour point

[G-MAN]

Well, just when I thought we had this "very low pour point (-81°F)=primarily ester base oil" thing settled, I find on the Lubrizol web site that one of the "typical" properties of a 3.96 cSt@100°C "olefin oligomer" is a pour point of -79°C. That's -110°F!!!

Isn't an "olefin oligomer" a PAO?

 

[Jay]

Olefin oligomers are also called polyalphaolefins. "Lubrication Fundamentals" says of PAOs:

quote:

---

They have high viscosity indexes, excellent low temperature fluidity, and very low pour points. Their shear stability is excellent as is their hydrolytic stability.

---

 

[Jay]

Olefin oligomer:

code:

---

CH3 - CH - CH2 - CH - CH2 - CH2

| | |

CH2- CH2 - CH2- CH2 - CH2

| | |

CH2- CH2 - CH2- CH2 - CH2

| | |

CH2- CH2 - CH2- CH2 - CH2

| | |

CH2- CH2 - CH2- CH2 - CH2

| | |

CH2- CH2 - CH2- CH2 - CH2

| | |

CH2- CH2 - CH2- CH2 - CH2

| | |

CH2- CH2 - CH2- CH2 - CH2

| | |

CH3- CH3 - CH3- CH3 - CH3

---

Olefin oligomer on drugs:

CH3 - CH - CH2 - CH - CH2 - CH2
| | |
CH2- CH2 - CH2- CH2 - CH2
| | |
CH2- CH2 - CH2- CH2 - CH2
| | |
CH2- CH2 - CH2- CH2 - CH2
| | |
CH2- CH2 - CH2 - CH2 - CH2
| | |
CH2- CH2 - CH2- CH2 - CH2
| | |
CH2- CH2 - CH2- CH2 - CH2
| | |
CH2- CH2 - CH2- CH2 - CH2
| | |
CH3- CH3 - CH3- CH3 - CH3

[ May 13, 2003, 02:26 AM: Message edited by: Jay ]

 

[MolaKule]

There are many types of olefins and oligimers and their applications.

What's the context and to which Lubrizoil URL is it?

Thanks

Mola

 

[buster]

quote:

---

They have high viscosity indexes, excellent low temperature fluidity, and very low pour points. Their shear stability is excellent as is their hydrolytic stability

---

If the above is true, why do people complain when M1 is mainly PAO? I always here M1 lacks the ester content of the other brands like Redline and Amsoil?

 

[JohnBrowning]

Buster not all esters, and PAO's are created equally. Some ester are functional worthless as a lubricant and are just their for solventcy issues with additive package, some esters are prone to absorb water while some have the ability to resist high temps, shearing and boiloff. The same holds true for PAO's. SOme company use as many as six different synthetic base stocks to blend the oil in the bottle. Seldom does one base stock alone have all the propertys needed for an application! I think the reason people give M1 a little bit of grief is 5 fold. 1) Mobile 1 has been in the game long enough to know how to build the best oil but they choose not too. 2) They have the resources to change the chocked oil system (API) in the USA but are afraid to! 3) They will not stand behind their products capabilitys and choose to stick with the wimpy 3000 mile oil change policy.4) The still will not offer the better European M1 formula in the USA.5) They are the Big Bother and everyone likes to hate a Big Brother in any segment.

 

[troy_heagy]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JohnBrowning:
2) They have the resources to change the chocked oil system (API) in the USA but are afraid to!

---

What's wrong with the API system?

 

[Pablo]

troy wrote:

quote:

---

What's wrong with the API system?

---

It's limp, yet rigid, and in the end it doesn't come out ok.

Sure, as a new minimum standard the new "SL" is just OK. Mobil and others could be in the driver's seat with better lubes and get out of the 3000 mile OCI rut. (They do like to sell oil, though).

API Enforcement is a bit of a joke, yet there are good oils and companies that don't like paying $100,000+ to register ONE formula, make an improvement and have to start the process over again - nothing wrong with retesting - but the fee structure should accommodate this type of evolution - and is really hard on the small niche oils.

Again I'll take API over pure government OR NO regulation - but it needs to update to 2003 reality.

[ May 20, 2003, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: Pablo ]