NOAK Volatility

Messages
34,044
Location
Southern NJ
Some say NOAK is meaningless but I've noticed some people think because an oil has a NOAK of 6.5%, that it will burn less in engine X then an oil with a NOAK of 8%. I don't agree with this. There was another post awhile back that was a poll on how much oil your car used. (not the current thread). The consensus I get from what I've heard and read it that some engines consume more of a certain oil then others. I believe this is more to do with the visc. rather then NOAK. I don't see hardly any significance between oils that fall 1-3%pts away from one another in terms of NOAK. I would think anything below 9% would be more then enough.
 
Messages
9,448
Location
USA
Buster how did you arive at 9% as the magic number. For me it depends on how much sludge you want you oil to leave behind when you push it real hard? How many hydrocrabons do you want to release into the catalytic converter? How many hard deposits do you want in your engine? How many make up quarts of oil do you want to buy dureing 6K,10K, or 15K miles of use? I am sure if you change you oil every 3000 miles always reach operateing temp and 90% of your driveing is sustained HWY driveing of more then 20 miles each way then things like volitility do not matter much!I also think that most people with turbo charger would rather have less deposits building up in their oil supply/return lines! I think that ignoreing volitility is a bad move. The only people that down play volitility are those that produce or use an oil that scores poorly in this department. I happen to use an that does not do too well but for $3.88 a quart I can live with it!
 

buster

Thread starter
Messages
34,044
Location
Southern NJ
quote:
Buster how did you arive at 9% as the magic number
Calm down John, everythings going to be ok. [Big Grin] I think the European requirement is 13%??? The number I used was just to make the point that I don't see how using an oil with, say, a lower NOAK by 2% will show much difference in terms of CONSUMPTION. In other words, for example, one of the complaints of Mobil 1, and I agree with it, is that in some engines you tend to burn quite a bit of it. The NOAK numbers of Mobil 1 are within the 6-9% range and that using another brand with a NOAK of 5% wouldn't do much for consumption. So this leads me to think that it's Mobil 1's lighter viscosity that causes this in certain engines, those maybe with wider clearances. [ June 04, 2003, 07:07 PM: Message edited by: buster ]
 
Messages
9,448
Location
USA
Hey Buster I am not upset??? Why does everyone interpret my posts with a negative tone. If you ever meet me inperson you reliase that It is difficult to upset me! I laugh at almost everything even other people when they get made at me! I almost included the words this is not a flame!!!!I would not get made at anyone not unless they personaly attack me. If every you or anyone thinks I am flameing you or made please ask me! If I am ever made at someone I will say so out right! I doubt that their is too much to angry about when discussing oil! 9/10 times I am lauging when I type posts so bear that in mind whenyou read them. I have three lttle kids running around so I have to type realy fast.
 

buster

Thread starter
Messages
34,044
Location
Southern NJ
quote:
Hey Buster I am not upset???
I don't think your upset, you just sound worked up, but it's hard to tell via messaging. I enjoy your posts. It's good to have people on here that really know this stuff. I've learned a lot. [Cheers!]
 
Messages
3,031
Location
Florida
Geez John take it easy! Its easy to interpret or misinterpret based on people's typing. [Eek!] No reason to get your feathers all ruffled. [Cool]
 
Messages
8,467
Location
Colorado
JohnBrowning, I like your posts and find them informative. Do not let people upset you here. Some of my posts have been attacked big time, also. I especially was attacked whenever I said something negative about FRAM oil filters (hey guys, you FRAM people are great, keep up the good posts!). Sometimes it goes the other way. I dared to say in a post that I had become somewhat fond of FRAM oil filters a long time ago. Overall, the post was negative. But I was pounded by people who apparently did not read my entire post. I have not used FRAM for a long time, and I was referring to how when I did use FRAM a long time ago, I liked FRAM.
 
Messages
5,785
Location
Dixie
Buster, For oil of a given SAE grade, there is a very strong correlation between Noack volatility and oil consumption in actual service. If you have an engine in good condition, most of the oil consumption is simply from oil that evaporates. These oil vapors are then recycled through the PCV system and burned in the engine. That is why the API and ACEA continually strive to impose more stringent Noack limits every time a new oil spec comes out. One of the main reasons for the 1000 ppm Phosphorus limit on API licensed oils was due to the high evaporation rate of 5w-30 petroleum based oils that are the current standard for most gas engines. The thought was that burning this much P was not good for oxygen sensors or catalysts .... If you are talking about oil consumption in very high mileage engines, different mechanisms may be taking place. In these cases oil may be leaking past the valve stem seals or oil control rings directly into the combustion chamber. Going to a significantly heavier oil is about the only way to reduce oil consumption under these conditions. Watch what happens to oil consumption when "3MP" starts running the Amsoil 5w-30 in the LS-1 engine. I predict a reduction in oil consumption of 30% to 50%, mainly due to the much lower evaporation rate (4.9% vs 9.2%) of the Amsoil 5w-30 vs the M1, 5w-30. You can always find a few exceptions to any rule, but I think the data in this case is very convincing. TooSlick [ June 05, 2003, 03:00 AM: Message edited by: TooSlick ]
 

Patman

Staff member
Messages
21,989
Location
Oakville, Ontario
quote:
Originally posted by TooSlick: Watch what happens to oil consumption when "3MP" starts running the Amsoil 5w-30 in the LS-1 engine. I predict a reduction in oil consumption of 30% to 50%, mainly due to the much lower evaporation rate (4.9% vs 9.2%) of the Amsoil 5w-30 vs the M1, 5w-30.
I agree, and wouldn't even be surprised to see his consumption totally stop. I say this because many guys on the LS1 boards who have taken my advice and switched from Mobil 1 to Redline or Amsoil have noticed their consumption stop. Mobil 1 is just too thin for an LS1 that's burning oil (although in some cases the consumption is through the oil getting sucked into the PCV system, so these guys need to put on the updated PCV)
 

buster

Thread starter
Messages
34,044
Location
Southern NJ
quote:
Watch what happens to oil consumption when "3MP" starts running the Amsoil 5w-30 in the LS-1 engine. I predict a reduction in oil consumption of 30% to 50%, mainly due to the much lower evaporation rate (4.9% vs 9.2%) of the Amsoil 5w-30 vs the M1, 5w-30.
Ted, wouldn't you think it is more due to the lower viscosity of M1 rather then NOAK? All of the M1 oils fall in the 6-9% range. 10w-30 being the best at 6%.
 
Top