Questions for the “only oils with approvals!” crowd- API vs good oil engineering

[ripcord]

So would you agree that VW 502.00 is a trustworthy standard? And that d1G3 is a trustworthy (yet limited) API standard?

So take those approvals, and add them to a PAO/ester base rather than a Group III oil. Did the oil get better or worse overall??

If you just changed the base oil, then quite probably the oil would perform worse. Modern engine oils are formulated. An additive package that works well with one type of base oil or combination of base oils will not give the same results with another. This is where the engineering comes into play

 

[travis8352]

If you just changed the base oil, then quite probably the oil would perform worse. Modern engine oils are formulated. An additive package that works well with one type of base oil or combination of base oils will not give the same results with another. This is where the engineering comes into play

THIS!!

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

You can't "take approvals" and do things with them. You test the FINAL product against the criteria and it meets certification or doesn't.


I or anyone cannot say what happens when you change chemistry until you test for those changes. You can certainly make educated guesses but the actual test results are what we would rely on.

Making the assumption that changing one single variable will have one single change and outcome is a fatal flaw. Sometimes one change we make impacts multiple variables that necessitate multiple complimentary changes.

So can you enlighten us in the lowly API world, when we take an approved additive package, with better base oils and a top-treat of friction modifiers, and it blows every performance-based test out of the lab but “fails” because Phosphorous is 100ppm too high. Is the end consumer underserved, or is the engine left under protected, because said oil has more of a proven additive than the current API “standard” allows??

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

THIS!!

so you take a Group II or III oil and replace it with a Group III+ (GTL) or IV and it performs worse?

 

[bhvrdr]

So can you enlighten us in the lowly API world, when we take an approved additive package, with better base oils and a top-treat of friction modifiers, and it blows every performance-based test out of the lab but “fails” because Phosphorous is 100ppm too high. Is the end consumer underserved, or is the engine left under protected, because said oil has more of a proven additive than the current API “standard” allows??

See post 81. It reiterates what I stated.

I've already discussed using the word "better". You state "better" base oil. Better at what? This must be defined by testing.

One particular base chemistry may be better at VI or cold flow but worse at seal conditioning or more limited ability for additives to work

Again the way to determine what happens when the same additive package is added to a different base stock is to test the final product.

Never assume what any results will be without testing. Often a single change may necessitate multiple other changes.

 

[ripcord]

so you take a Group II or III oil and replace it with a Group III+ (GTL) or IV and it performs worse?

Think of it like making a cake. If you take a recipe and, for instance, just replace the white wheat flour with rice flour, you're not going to get a cake that has the same properties. It might turn out awesome and be better than the original cake, but more than likely it wouldn't be great. It would still be cake, but you'd need to alter the recipe by testing and experimenting with other ingredients, change proportions, etc to make it really good.

Different base stocks have plusses and minuses, good properties and not so good properties. A formulated oil is one that balances those characteristics and selects appropriate additives to arrive at an oil with the desired properties.

 

[Pablo]

so you take a Group II or III oil and replace it with a Group III+ (GTL) or IV and it performs worse?

As others have stated, it COULD be better, but likely you would need to change other chemistry here or there. Not that simple.

My point is, doesn't matter if "certified" or not, you change, you have to know what you are doing from the get go, then initial testing then detailed testing.

 

[OVERKILL]

If you just changed the base oil, then quite probably the oil would perform worse. Modern engine oils are formulated. An additive package that works well with one type of base oil or combination of base oils will not give the same results with another. This is where the engineering comes into play

If you read the base oil interchange guides, many base oil swaps omit many of the tests, like Group III -> PAO for example.

 

[ripcord]

If you read the base oil interchange guides, many base oil swaps omit many of the tests, like Group III -> PAO for example.

Is that because the additive manufacturer has already done the testing and provided the blender with appropriate formulas?

 

[OVERKILL]

You can't "take approvals" and do things with them. You test the FINAL product against the criteria and it meets certification or doesn't.

Just a note on that, but the approved additive packages are usually compatible with a decent list of base oils and the final product never needs to be tested, that's why they are sold as pre-approved.

An example:
Infineum P6895A additive package:

In a significant stride towards sustainable automotive lubrication, Infineum has unveiled its latest product, the groundbreaking Infineum P6895A. This innovative lubricant additive package is a pioneer in the market, as it is the first to meet the stringent Stellantis test for SAE 0W-20, PSA B71 2010.

The test run by Stellantis, formerly known as PSA Group before merging with Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, sets high standards for lubricants to ensure they align with the performance and protection needs of modern engines. Multinational car manufacturer Stellantis, which includes renowned brands like Peugeot, Citroën, DS, Opel, and Vauxhall, has long been at the forefront of automotive innovation.

Infineum P6895A has been meticulously crafted with a specific focus on sustainability, from its initial research and development stages to its in-use performance. It employs cutting-edge technology that meets current industry specifications, including the latest requirements from major French OEMs. The additive package not only meets stringent performance standards but also prioritises market-leading fuel economy – a key element in building a cleaner, greener automotive future.

*Snip*

Moreover, this advanced additive package is compatible with the latest bio-derived base stocks, further emphasizing its alignment with sustainability goals in the automotive industry.

Formulated for now and for the future, Infineum P6985A can deliver mid SAPs targeted OEM requirements for both new and legacy vehicles across a wide range of viscosity grades (SAE 5W-30, SAE 0W-30 and SAE 0W-20) and with the latest bio derived base stocks.

So not only can it be used with multiple types of base stocks, but it can also be used to blend multiple grades, which means different levels of PPD's, VII's...etc.

Same language from Afton:

 

[OVERKILL]

Is that because the additive manufacturer has already done the testing and provided the blender with appropriate formulas?

See the above post that quotes Infineum.

 

[OVERKILL]

Is that because the additive manufacturer has already done the testing and provided the blender with appropriate formulas?

No, it's because the API knows, based on their extensive testing, that it doesn't matter.

 

[travis8352]

so you take a Group II or III oil and replace it with a Group III+ (GTL) or IV and it performs worse?

No. im speaking strictly based off what i read in an exxonmobil research and engineering patent a ilsac lubricant composition for forming a thick tribofilm on metal parts. They found that it did not matter what the base oil was II-IV but that it mattered what the group V was. The patent listed testing when using a TMP ester at 5% of the composition and they were unable to form a thick tribofilm but when they switched it to 5% ANs they were able to form thick tribofilms. The most effective concentration of ANs was 20% and after that it made no difference. Now it also involved mostly using boron and lower detergents to achieve this which is why i believe it to be a patent for the current mobil 1 triple action formula.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

No, it's because the API knows, based on their extensive testing, that it doesn't matter.

I love it when a plan comes together…

 

[OVERKILL]

No. im speaking strictly based off what i read in an exxonmobil research and engineering patent a ilsac lubricant composition for forming a thick tribofilm on metal parts. They found that it did not matter what the base oil was II-IV but that it mattered what the group V was. The patent listed testing when using a TMP ester at 5% of the composition and they were unable to form a thick tribofilm but when they switched it to 5% ANs they were able to form thick tribofilms. The most effective concentration of ANs was 20% and after that it made no difference. Now it also involved mostly using boron and lower detergents to achieve this which is why i believe it to be a patent for the current mobil 1 triple action formula.

And, for a product developed by XOM for XOM, that makes sense. Their general market Infineum additive packages, just like the ones from Lubrizol and Afton, need to be more flexible, because that's what the market demands, examples of which, I've posted above.

So, I think your very emphatic "THIS!!" was a bit premature.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

No. im speaking strictly based off what i read in an exxonmobil research and engineering patent a ilsac lubricant composition for forming a thick tribofilm on metal parts. They found that it did not matter what the base oil was II-IV but that it mattered what the group V was. The patent listed testing when using a TMP ester at 5% of the composition and they were unable to form a thick tribofilm but when they switched it to 5% ANs they were able to form thick tribofilms. The most effective concentration of ANs was 20% and after that it made no difference. Now it also involved mostly using boron and lower detergents to achieve this which is why i believe it to be a patent for the current mobil 1 triple action formula.

Is that 20% of the additive package, or 20% of the overall oil? Serious question.

 

[OVERKILL]

I love it when a plan comes together…

You also have to consider how that thought process translates to mixing oils (which I'm personally not a fan of). If you are of the mind that modifying the base oil blend is problematic, what about when you add a quart of oil with totally different chemistry to the sump? You are introducing not only different base oils, but different VII's, different PPD's, different FM's, different AW additives...etc. What about adding MoS2, Lucas, Ceratec or any of the other additives?

And yes, I've pointed out many times that when you mix two oils (like M1 0W-40 with TGMO) that the final product is totally untested, carries zero approvals...etc, and the same applies to using additives.

However, at least with these pre-approved additive packages, the manufacturers do specifically mention compatibility with different VII's and different base oils, including even, with that specific Infineum pack, bio-based bases, which have some very unique characteristics. And, as I mentioned in my reply to Travis, this only makes sense, as base oil availability can be problematic, and what if you want to use different base oils because you feel the product would benefit from the sustainability angle (bio-based). So, if you are Infineum, you want to guarantee a reasonably broad range of compatibility to capture a large market share. Afton is clearly in the same boat.

 

[OVERKILL]

Is that 20% of the additive package, or 20% of the overall oil? Serious question.

I would assume that's 20% of the base oil blend. AN's have fantastic solvency and some amazing characteristics (they are fantastic cleaners), but they have very low VI's, so you are constrained with how much you can use if you are trying to do broad grade spreads.

 

[travis8352]

Is that 20% of the additive package, or 20% of the overall oil? Serious question.

20% of the base oil composition. Now that doesnt mean that mobil 1 is 20% ANs as the patent also lists the most effective concentration of boron is in the 200-300 ppm range and and as we know ilsac mobil 1 is around 80ppm and the SP FS formula is 150 ppm down from 300 previously.

 

[TheLawnRanger]

I don't care if anything I buy has certifications or not. When I go to a restaurant, all that matters is if the food tastes good. I don't need pesky certificate from the health department telling me what delicious is. If I have an operation, it's none of my business if the doctor is certified by the American Medical Association. Also, who needs the FDA forcing their beliefs on us? Bylonol and Duffrin can make headaches go away without their interference. While I'm at it, why does an airline need inspections from the FAA? All that matters is that I make it to Cleveland on time.