Reduced additives are better for lubrication

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jan 16, 2006
Messages
1,841
Location
United We Stand
Quote:
Most 'dino' oils have about 20-25% additives, depending on viscosity and brand. But that figure is almost universal


Quote:
Mobil 1 has about 10-12% additives, far less than 'dino' oil, because the synthetic base stocks are much, much closer to 'perfect' and able to do an outstanding job without the use of nearly as many additives, which can be thought of as modifiers or 'band-aids'. This higher percentage of actual OIL in the Mobil 1 formula lets the oil lubricate and cool your engine better. That is why engines that use a good synthetic get noticeably better mileage, run cooler, last longer, make more power, and produce fewer emissions. But to me, the most important reason that I use Mobil 1 is because there are no trace elements in it. None! Remember, it is the sulfur and phosphorous that helps lead to sludge formation in an engine. Without these trace elements in the oil, the formation of sludge is remarkably reduced. Engines that are run exclusively on Mobil 1 stay unbelievably clean and sludge-free. Sludge is far and away the leading cause of engine failure. That's why I don't like the Castrol synthetic product: It still contains many trace elements. Now Amsoil advertises that their oil is the 'extended drain interval' oil. They do this by pumping up the additive package. They can have as much as 3 times as many additives as Mobil 1, so in theory it can take more 'shearing', lasting longer. More additives means less actual oil in the mix, resulting in less lubrication, less cooling, more wear and tear...you know the rest. The oil may last longer, but at what price? Your engine? That's not a good trade off for me. Don't get me wrong. Amsoil is a very good oil, but no matter how good any oil is, your engine is still going to produce contaminants and by-products, and the longer they are in your engine the more damage being done.


Quote:
What I believe and try to teach my employees and customers is that with a properly broken-in engine, regular maintenance( 3,000 mile oil changes) and sensible driving habits, it is very possible to have an engine that basically suffers NO wear and tear for many, many thousands of miles


Credentials:
Quote:
Owner/operator of a multi-unit chain of auto service facilities throughout Brevard county in Florida, as well as being an active and current member of the following organizations;

SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) - Certified Master-Tech. STLE (Society of Tribologists and Lubrication Engineers) - Certified Fluid-Dynamics Tribologist. SRI (Society of Rheological Engineering) - Certified Rheologist


http://www.boss302.com/oil.htm
 
Interesting...
wink.gif
 
When I read the quoted paragraph, it sounds like drivel from an internet 'expert'....but then I read the guys credentials, and I have to confess, he sounds like he has the knowledge to know what he's talking about.

But he can't REALLY be advocating 3k changes on M1, can he?

Mola, JAG, Bruce381...anyone gonna take him on?
 
I dont buy that more adds means less oil in the mix. Even at 2500-5000ppm of certain and total "stuff" that is a tiny fraction.

Volume is volume, most stuff is soluble. The differentiation is so tiny that it is irrelevant.
 
How is phosphorous a "trace element"? It's the 'P' part of ZDDP, which is one of the most important anti-wear additives. Also, from what I've seen most synthetics have more additives (and higher TBN to match) than conventional oils.

Quote:
Volume is volume, most stuff is soluble.

That's not entirely true. Have you ever made "rock candy" at home? You can dissolve >1c sugar in 1c water. Just because it's dissolved doesn't meant it's insignificant.

I do wonder where he gets his percentage numbers for additives. Like JHZR2 said, even 5000ppm of total additive is only 0.5%.
 
Its very Interesting, but then Oils like MaxLife would not be anywhere near as good based on this logic.

Im tryimg Mobil 1 anyway and a different brand for the Winter (maybe maybe not) and i will see how that goes.

Flow is better to have regardless of the Oil choice, IMHO.
 
This "... no trace element ..." comment is a bunch of idiotic commentary directly refuted by datasheet and VOA. I Would disregard any credentials, and, being a member of an organization does not a subject scholar make. I can post MY credentials, but would you believe them?! Facts: most all certified PCMO have >> .3% trace metal(Ca,Na,Zn,Mo,Bo) and phosphorous and sulphur. Recall that 10,000ppm = 1%. One wisdom pearl: some of his comments appear to point to less VII required in synthetic oil (or high vi basestock, and I would tend to agree that this would be a tick or two in the plus column.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: NateDN10
Quote:
Volume is volume, most stuff is soluble.

That's not entirely true. Have you ever made "rock candy" at home? You can dissolve >1c sugar in 1c water. Just because it's dissolved doesn't meant it's insignificant.


Rock candy is a bad example because it is the result of nucleation and crystal growth. It is a distinct thermodynamic phase.

The point of solubilized additives is to ensure that these distinct materials remain in a single, consistent phase. We want 100% partition of the adds into the liquid phase. It is just a volume fraction issue then, all as constituents of the liquid. These adds, AFAIK, are not stabilized solids in the liquid.

Granted the sugar is initially dissolved into the water, but it is still an issue of a separate phase forming. If this happens in oils, you have another problem.
 
Quote:
Owner/operator of a multi-unit chain of auto service facilities

What else do you need to know?

Much of what he says is just plain goofy. The role of phosphorus was discussed above. The role of sulfur is also important in one way. The "thio" in zinc dialkyl dithio phosphate or related compounds, and thio in Molybdenum tridialkyldithiocarbamate and related compounds is...sulfur. Thio means sulfur, and the sulfur in this case is essential to bond the other materials to the crystalline structure of the iron or steel.

The prefix thio-, when applied to a chemical, such as an ion, means that an oxygen atom in the compound has been replaced by a sulfur atom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thio-

The formation of antiwear tribofilms plays a critical role in the longevity of automotive gears. The focus of this experimental study was on the lubrication efficacy of gear oils with different contents of borate-, phosphorus-, and sulfur-containing additives leading to the formation of protective tribofilms.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a781081743

More: http://books.google.com/books?id=i5nolx6...fur&f=false

Yes, base oils need their sulfur greatly lowered by the refining process, then sulfur in "thio" compounds is added back for very good reason.
 
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: JAG
That is such nonsense that it doesn't even warrant a piece-by-piece breakdown of its fallacies.


thumbsup2.gif


Tom NJ


Id like to see it, however.

You wouldnt want non-chemists like myself thinking that an Oil that has the least Additives is the Best, would you?
thumbsup2.gif
 
Originally Posted By: HangerHarley
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: JAG
That is such nonsense that it doesn't even warrant a piece-by-piece breakdown of its fallacies.


thumbsup2.gif


Tom NJ


Id like to see it, however.

You wouldnt want non-chemists like myself thinking that an Oil that has the least Additives is the Best, would you?
thumbsup2.gif

Sorry, moronic post are best ignored as they are the stuff of trolls. Idiotic statements require NO reply or proof. I am getting the a growing feeling of a troll invasion around here - smart posters posings as neophytes taunting the forum with stupid questions. Is it just me?
 
Last edited:
the guy needs to make money. what better way then to preech to your customers that they need to pay $80 for a M1 oil change every 3k miles. This guy obviously knows more than the OEM's that spend millions every year on engine testing to help determine fluid needs and change intervals for their consumers

The statements he made, makes him look like he has stock in exxonmobil
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: JAG
That is such nonsense that it doesn't even warrant a piece-by-piece breakdown of its fallacies.

::chants:: Do it! Do it! Do it!

DESTROY him!

I kid. Though if someone wants to I'm in for the lol's.
 
Originally Posted By: hooligan24
the guy needs to make money. what better way then to preech to your customers that they need to pay $80 for a M1 oil change every 3k miles. This guy obviously knows more than the OEM's that spend millions every year on engine testing to help determine fluid needs and change intervals for their consumers

The statements he made, makes him look like he has stock in exxonmobil

I pay about $31 for the 5 qt. M1 jug, an extra qt. bottle, and an oil filter. Not sure where $80 is coming from but that seems outrageous. Just buy at Wal-Mart, lol.
 
Originally Posted By: Mustang Man
Originally Posted By: hooligan24
the guy needs to make money. what better way then to preech to your customers that they need to pay $80 for a M1 oil change every 3k miles. This guy obviously knows more than the OEM's that spend millions every year on engine testing to help determine fluid needs and change intervals for their consumers

The statements he made, makes him look like he has stock in exxonmobil

I pay about $31 for the 5 qt. M1 jug, an extra qt. bottle, and an oil filter. Not sure where $80 is coming from but that seems outrageous. Just buy at Wal-Mart, lol.


Get a non-quick lube conventional oil change. The oil will be at least $5/quart and the filter will be between $8.95-$9.95 (maybe more by now). A full service smaller shop can't afford the $20 bulk oil change for the time and real estate it takes up. A synthetic oil change COSTS the shop the prices you're quoting, probably more since he/she/they can't add hours to the day to travel around to WM for their oil. A service rep will stop by at some sensible frequency and restock chemicals and fluids/filters. The shop owner pays for that service and charges what it costs to maintain that inventory so that it's there when his/her/their customers need service.
 
I believe there is some truth to what he's saying, how much is another story. There is no free lunch, maybe beefing up an oil to handle extended drains has its trade offs. Although looking at UOA's it would be tough to prove.
21.gif
 
I would guess high detergent % and low zddp required by GF-4 should show more wear. That's why I avoid ED oils if I am limited to 5K OCI for warranty. No M! EP for me; I like M1 10w30 HM - a lot :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom