Oils using which anti-wear additives, Why so many?

Messages
147
Location
Ft. Collins
Of the anti-wear additives that are now being used, there are zinc, moly, boron, and titanium based chemical compounds. If you can meet all SN/GF-5/4718M/dexos1, the toughest domestic U.S. specs, with ACEA A1/A5 on top of that, only using ONE (zinc) anti-wear additive, why would you bother with moly, boron, and titanium? Business case? All 5w-30s: Valvoline Synpower, Royal Purple, NAPA Full Synthetic use only zinc. 0w-30: Castrol Synteq Euro 0w-30 "German/Belgian Castrol", which passes the very tough MB 229.5 spec, using only zinc as the anti-wear additive. Kendall GT-1 uses a different approach: Put zinc, boron, moly, and titanium in there together. Castrol Edge with FST does this too. Other oils use some subset with zinc. (Fuchs is the only oil to NOT use zinc that I know of.) Is it base oil quality that negates the need to use more different kinds of antiwear additives? That wouldn't make sense, since Amsoil uses great PAO base stocks yet they use boron+moly+zinc in their SS oils.
 
Messages
3,508
Location
Delaware
Originally Posted By: route66mike
Of the anti-wear additives that are now being used, there are zinc, moly, boron, and titanium based chemical compounds. If you can meet all SN/GF-5/4718M/dexos1, the toughest domestic U.S. specs, with ACEA A1/A5 on top of that, only using ONE (zinc) anti-wear additive, why would you bother with moly, boron, and titanium? Business case? All 5w-30s: Valvoline Synpower, Royal Purple, NAPA Full Synthetic use only zinc. 0w-30: Castrol Synteq Euro 0w-30 "German/Belgian Castrol", which passes the very tough MB 229.5 spec, using only zinc as the anti-wear additive. Kendall GT-1 uses a different approach: Put zinc, boron, moly, and titanium in there together. Castrol Edge with FST does this too. Other oils use some subset with zinc. (Fuchs is the only oil to NOT use zinc that I know of.) Is it base oil quality that negates the need to use more different kinds of antiwear additives? That wouldn't make sense, since Amsoil uses great PAO base stocks yet they use boron+moly+zinc in their SS oils.
Umm, are you sure that Valvoline etc. only uses zinc as anti-wear additive? I mean I hope you have more data than just VOA because a VOA only detects the metallic additives. Are you sure there are no non-metallic additives that are also anti-wear additives that Valvoline etc. is using?
 

route66mike

Thread starter
Messages
147
Location
Ft. Collins
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Valvoline is actually one of the lowest zddp oils,right?
With the SN limits on ZDDP, all the SN/GF-5/dexos1 style synthetics I see on the PQIA site have around the same amount of ZDDP. Seems formulators just take it right to the SN limit as standard practice.
 

route66mike

Thread starter
Messages
147
Location
Ft. Collins
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Different additive take effect at different temperatures and pressures. QOTD
Thats a true thought. Yet, isn't it all about what specs you can print on your bottle of motor oil you are trying to sell? If you can do it with only one anti-wear additive (zddp) then why bother with the others?
 

route66mike

Thread starter
Messages
147
Location
Ft. Collins
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Umm, are you sure that Valvoline etc. only uses zinc as anti-wear additive? I mean I hope you have more data than just VOA because a VOA only detects the metallic additives. Are you sure there are no non-metallic additives that are also anti-wear additives that Valvoline etc. is using?
If Valvoline has non-zinc anti-wear additives, its not amongst the elements listed in the PQIA VOA. Like 20 elements there. If there is a hydrocarbon based polymer acting as an anti-wear, it doesn't show up on VOA, you're right. Is that whats going on here? If its not on the VOA, maybe its like the Prolong oil additive (anti-wear) which is a chlorine hydrocarbon (non-metallic chorinated hydrocarbon). My WAG at it. I don't know.
 
Messages
11,844
Location
PA
Originally Posted By: route66mike
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Different additive take effect at different temperatures and pressures. QOTD
Thats a true thought. Yet, isn't it all about what specs you can print on your bottle of motor oil you are trying to sell? If you can do it with only one anti-wear additive (zddp) then why bother with the others?
1. If an oil company made a product that only worked at certain temperature ranges, their competitors would make a moon-sized PR bonfire of it. 2. If that oil still met a spec despite that obvious deficiency, that would mean the spec had failed to account for something mind-numbingly simple, and the organization responsible for it would take a hit as well.
 
Messages
218
Location
Florida
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
1. If an oil company made a product that only worked at certain temperature ranges, their competitors would make a moon-sized PR bonfire of it. 2. If that oil still met a spec despite that obvious deficiency, that would mean the spec had failed to account for something mind-numbingly simple, and the organization responsible for it would take a hit as well.
Then how can Valvoline, Royal Purple, NAPA, and German Castrol all get away with using only zinc as the one and only anti wear additive? OK accepted that it takes heat and pressure to activate ZDDP working. I understand that "if" you add moly to the zinc, you get an anti wear benefit at a lower temperature, as many oil formulators do.
 
Messages
119
Location
texas
Maybe oils that use titanium, boron, moly, and zinc are working from an evolutionary formulation model. The chemists just keep tweaking the current formula by adding a little more moly this year, then next year the new spec comes out and they add some titanium to the formula, etc., until we end up with the current day's formula.
 
Messages
43,670
Location
'Stralia
As the Zn compounds break down in an engine, they will produce any number of species, all of which are activated differently. It's not like you have only ZDDP or tribofilm glassy layers...there's different reactions taking place. as to Molakule's assertion on additives, this is the one that I bought off Specialty Formulations back in the day when you could http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=477299
 
Messages
43,670
Location
'Stralia
Expanding on the above, the Ford Conoco study that's gained the mantra that oil changes wear out your engine, demonstrate that used oil (very used in some of their cases) formed a slipperier, and different tribofilm as there were more species available to react. Although there's some moly in this paper it can be seen that what's laid down (and therefore what's circulating in the bulk oil) is not the same as what was installed at the oil change.
 
Messages
119
Location
texas
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Expanding on the above, the Ford Conoco study that's gained the mantra that oil changes wear out your engine, demonstrate that used oil (very used in some of their cases) formed a slipperier, and different tribofilm as there were more species available to react. Although there's some moly in this paper it can be seen that what's laid down (and therefore what's circulating in the bulk oil) is not the same as what was installed at the oil change.
Fun paper to read. Mobil1 fans will like it best, they used M1 5w-30 in it. Best quotes/conclusions: 1. "It is not possible to determine whether any single additive has a significant influence on the indentation modulus (film stiffness) versus the final formulated package (of Mobil 1 5w-30 oil)." - Meaning they couldn't pick out which of the zddp/boron/moly/calcium etc. compounds on the film stiffness near boundary contact conditions. 2. "Adding a detergent or dispersant will increase the wear scar appreciably from using just ZDDP itself." - Meaning having detergents can make wear increase, kind of academic since we have to have detergents, yet maybe a different, new kind of detergent wouldn't cause this wear problem as much. 3. "Boron is not incorporated into the film." - At least for this formulation, wondering if boron is really necessary after all. It gives you an appreciation for the complexity of that many additives interacting together, sometimes antagonistically! The paper also stated that they felt the academic research had investigated a lot of one-on-one properties of one chemical additive vs. one other one, yet very little research has been done to see how a large group of additives interact. With Kendall GT-1 and Castrol Edge throwing all 4 kinds of anti-wear additives into the mix to duke it out, we have to ask the intellectual question that Stewie might ask: "What the deuce man! So many anti-wear additives in one oil? You're telling me you understand all the interactions there?!?"
 
Messages
13,920
Location
Kendall, FL
Originally Posted By: stickybuns
Adding a detergent or dispersant will increase the wear scar appreciably from using just ZDDP itself."- Meaning having detergents can make wear increase, kind of academic since we have to have detergents, yet maybe a different, new kind of detergent wouldn't cause this wear problem as much.
This has been discussed here before... Would this quote neccessarily lead a layperson to believe that the "best" cleaning oils are worse at protecting? I wouldn't think it's true but the conclusion can be logically drawn from that sentence.
 
Last edited:
Messages
6,388
Location
Washington St.
This lists the actual tests the oils go through to meet the GF-5 standards. http://www.gf-5.com/the_story/testing/ While all GF-5 oils meet the fuel economy standards in sequence VI-D, they also must meet the wear standards in sequence IV-A. There are multiple ways to meet the requirements. The zinc compounds produce a wear resistance, relatively high friction film on the surface of the engine parts. Zinc plus the moly compounds produce a wear resistance, low friction tribofilm. Zinc plus the titanium compounds produce a similar film at lower cost of ingredients. And, it is much more complex that just this.
 
Messages
119
Location
texas
Originally Posted By: Ken2
There are multiple ways to meet the requirements.
Thats true. VOAs show plenty of differences, mainly in the use of boron/moly/titanium, as in some oils don't use them at all and still meet all the specs.
Originally Posted By: Ken2
The zinc compounds produce a wear resistance, relatively high friction film on the surface of the engine parts. Zinc plus the moly compounds produce a wear resistance, low friction tribofilm.
Sounds OK, yet we know Valvoline, Royal Purple, and NAPAsynthetic, all respected products, don't use moly or any other known friction modifier to meet GF-5.
Originally Posted By: Ken2
Zinc plus the titanium compounds produce a similar film at lower cost of ingredients. And, it is much more complex that just this.
I've never heard titanium was a cheaper ingredient. Most oils don't use titanium at all. Not popular. You didn't say anything about boron. The tech paper above said boron wasn't present in the tribofilm. And we know about half the synthetic oils on the pqia summary done in 2013 didn't use boron. Above it was noticed that even the revered German Castrol 0w-30 doesn't use it either. There is one oil that has cranked up the anti-wear additives to new heights: Mazda Genuine Motor Oil MGMO 0w-20, with boron at 266 ppm and moly at 664 ppm (no titanium). What are they thinking? They must be meeting some invisible spec.
 
Last edited:
Messages
119
Location
texas
dave1251, You have never posted anything of any value. The way these forums work, is you present some form of information. Are you 12 years old? If so, that would explain a lot.
 
Messages
19,686
Location
Sunny Florida
Originally Posted By: stickybuns
dave1251, You have never posted anything of any value. The way these forums work, is you present some form of information. Are you 12 years old? If so, that would explain a lot.
Thank goodness your opinion doesn't mean much. Most of those who matter here know what's up. You don't. Go to it, man...
 
Top