Supertech now available in 0w16

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
I am with ekpolk on this one... yes, NOACK is a data point, and likely valid in it's own world. But let's think about this: NOACK is a test designed to keep a open cup sample of oil at 250* CELSIUS (482*F) for a full HOUR. There is literally no way to duplicate this outside of a racetrack in the US on any vehicle I know of. In addition to this unlikelihood, we know that there are other bad things that start to happen to an oil in an actual engine when the oil temperature exceeds 300*F even for shorter periods which would likely have more catastrophic consequences long before the oil "boiled off" due to NOACK. So, while an oil may indeed lose 32% of its weight when held at 482*F for an hour in an open cup with constant airflow over it, we do not (at least to my knowledge) actually have a valid way to correlate those conditions to that of a "real-world" engine with oil temps less than 200*F and in a nearly closed-loop system (other than the somewhat small PCV flow thru the crankcase).


The Noack test is to give a relative oil volatility rating. That volatility occurs the most around the ring pack on the pistons and on the cylinder walls because of the extreme combustion temperature. So on a relative scale, an oil that has a Noack of 20% is likely to "burn off" 10% more mass compared to an oil with Noack of 10% under the same temperature exposure in those hot areas of the engine. Also, a V8 will most likely vaporize more oil per mile than a in-line 4 cylinder because there is more exposure to these hot areas ... but a V8 usually has more sump capacity so it all kind of evens out.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Gokhan
A properly engineered engine will have no problem with 0W-8 HTHSV > 1.7 cP. Note that the water viscosity at room temperature is 1.0 cP; so, it's pretty close.


Maybe so in journal bearings if the bearing design is tweaked. But there are lots of parts moving against each other in an engine that are not full hydrodynamic lubrication. As the SwRI engine wear report showed, running 16 vs 30 showed more wear with 16 in many areas. Now do the same test with 12 or 8 oil and you bump wear up again. As mentioned before, as film thickness (MOFT) from viscosity goes down, the film strength (anti-wear additives to mitigate contact wear) has to go up. Doing the latter is less effective to control wear than the former.


Per when I did my engineering...hydrodynamic was defined as the "zero wear" regime (no asperite contact)...mixed and boundary was in the "controlled wear" regime, where additives are a large part (still need the lubricant), and some of the additives even form soaps with the metallic surfaces to wear (slowly), without welding of asperities.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted by StevieC
A decade ago it was the 20w50 crowd talking about using that instead of "thin" 30wt oils here. Now it's 0w16 being too thin and you should use something thicker.

It's been longer ago than that.

The only recommendations I've seen in North American gasoline vehicles thicker than a 30 at least twenty years would be the odd Ford calling for a 5w-50, a couple Vette outliers, and so forth.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
None of the high Noack oils posted above in the chart I provided are PAO-based through. I'm not sure how you so confidently shrug it aside when that factoid is staring you right in the face

The only one with a somewhat sane volatility was the Toyota product, they rest were nuts.

Exactly!

I've been talking a lot about base-oil quality here.

As you said, these oils were "nuts." To put it another way, they did not meet any industry or OEM requirements.

ILSAC GF-5 and API SN requirement for Noack is 15% max. ILSAC GF-6B will allow 0W-16 with the same 15% max Noack requirement. So far, it's not clear if they will allow 0W-12 and 0W-8 -- something that remains to be seen.

dexos1 Noack requirement is 13% max. It will be the same for dexos1 approved 0W-16 oils.

Back to base-oil quality, this presentation is probably the best on this matter:

Global perspective on base-oil quality and how it affects lubricants specifications
(Global perspective on lubricant specifications and how it affects base-oil quality)

PDF link

Note that the presentation has a title and an alternate title, which summarizes its essence: (1) Availability of better base oils is enabling the industry to make better oils with better specifications and (2) tighter (more stringent) industry and OEM specifications are requiring better base oils.

There have been many discussions on BITOG regarding why different oils are specified in different regions around the world. Some here blame it on CAFE and others on Australian ox carts. This slide explains the reason:

Now, coming back to Noack, these are the base-oil performance plots that inspired my base-oil quality index (BOQI). You need to understand how they work if you're going to blend modern motor oil:

What you do is that you look at the Noack and viscosity requirements by the OEM. If they want a 0W-20 with 13% Noack, you locate that in the plot, and it will tell you which types of base oils would work.

For example, M1 0W-40 and Castrol 0W-40 have Noack around 9%. M1 AFE (half PAO-based) and PP 0W-20 (GTL-based) have Noack around 10%. These oils are two-viscosity grades apart but their Noacks are similar.

The PAO-based vollsynthetisches (full synthetic in German sense) Ravenol EFE 0W-16 is fortified with trinuclear moly (perhaps they have been reading my BITOG posts

) and has a Noack of only 6.8%. It has BOQI II = 281 and BOQI = 117, probably the highest base-oil quality index numbers I have ever seen.

https://www.ravenol.de/uploads/tx_ravenol/pdf-print/RAVENOL_EFE_SAE_0W16_1.pdf

Noack is a "nonissue" in the sense that if the industry specs it, it can be done and will be done. Simply use a PAO or perhaps even a GTL base oil to achieve the latest and highest in oil performance.

Mr. Shannow, technology required is easily within the means of even the smallest oil blender. It requires only the will to do so. It is not only possible -- it is essential. That is the whole idea of this base-oil quality -- you know.


By the way, Shannow, what is this mailing list you keep talking about and how can we get on it?

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
I am with ekpolk on this one... yes, NOACK is a data point, and likely valid in it's own world. But let's think about this: NOACK is a test designed to keep a open cup sample of oil at 250* CELSIUS (482*F) for a full HOUR. There is literally no way to duplicate this outside of a racetrack in the US on any vehicle I know of. In addition to this unlikelihood, we know that there are other bad things that start to happen to an oil in an actual engine when the oil temperature exceeds 300*F even for shorter periods which would likely have more catastrophic consequences long before the oil "boiled off" due to NOACK. So, while an oil may indeed lose 32% of its weight when held at 482*F for an hour in an open cup with constant airflow over it, we do not (at least to my knowledge) actually have a valid way to correlate those conditions to that of a "real-world" engine with oil temps less than 200*F and in a nearly closed-loop system (other than the somewhat small PCV flow thru the crankcase).


The Noack test is to give a relative oil volatility rating. That volatility occurs the most around the ring pack on the pistons and on the cylinder walls because of the extreme combustion temperature. So on a relative scale, an oil that has a Noack of 20% is likely to "burn off" 10% more mass compared to an oil with Noack of 10% under the same temperature exposure in those hot areas of the engine. Also, a V8 will most likely vaporize more oil per mile than a in-line 4 cylinder because there is more exposure to these hot areas ... but a V8 usually has more sump capacity so it all kind of evens out.


Exactly....it's relevant as it's the sorts of tempertures that prevail in that little "refinery" area in the ring belt.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3372187/Oil_ring_belt_residence_time_a

 

[Shannow]

The above I thought I posted before work, so clicked send 12 hours later.

BTW, how come I've got two trolls trolling me now ???

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by Gokhan

Now, coming back to Noack, these are the base-oil performance plots that inspired my base-oil quality index (BOQI). You need to understand how they work if you're going to blend modern motor oil:

What you do is that you look at the Noack and viscosity requirements by the OEM. If they want a 0W-20 with 13% Noack, you locate that in the plot, and it will tell you which types of base oils would work.



See, this is where your BOQI is bunk, we've been over this before, in discussions on old mate's patent.

As I've said before...a family of curves is made, using different ratios of different basestocks INCLUDING various mixes of Groups. You pick the design point, then it helps you to design the BLEND that will get you there...so in your statement above, you are only using half the patent, the bit that suits your agenda that BOQI selects individual groups.

But the inverse of the charts, your BOQI of a finished oil is taking the whole issue somewhere that the patent holder didn't even suggest....

(When I've mentioned this before, you've questioned my quals, stated that I'm dismissing the quals of the patent holder, and any other set of strawmen to divert people away from your mis-use of science...there's surely something I can name you and CAPITALISE in there somewhere)

and as we've been over...and over...and over....it gives all of the Mobil spectrasyn base oils, all from the same family, same process....wildly different BOQI...so your index of "quality" doesn't measure "quality".

EDIT....for others, here's the patent.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20100077842

And the curves of various Base oil blends with regard to CCS and NOACK...e.g. the 100N 200N line is 100% 100N at one end, 100% 200N at the other. Note the dot for 150N, that is below the curve...

 

[wemay]

Honest question here regarding ultra low viscosity and Noack:

Wouldn't a less viscous oil reduce friction thus reach oil burn off temps less frequently, in essence reducing the importance of Noack (to a degree) in these 0w16 engines?

I'd assume this also benefits these engines where IVD is concerned, not to mention they might also be dual injected.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by wemay
Honest question here.
Wouldn't a less viscous oil reduce friction thus reach oil burn off temps less frequently, in essence reducing the importance of Noack (to a degree) in these 0w16 engines?

I'd assume this also benefits these engines where IVD is concerned, not to mention they might also be dual injected.


wemay, look at the piston ring belt discussion of earlier...that area runs in the Noack range, and the oil that makes it to the ring belt resides there for 10s of seconds (may as well be forever in that respect), allowing plenty of time for the oil to be boiled off.

The testing reveals that the resident oil left behind is more "additised" than the sump oil, so therefore the basestocks are going missing.

Thus the relevance of the test.

 

[wemay]

Thanks, will do. But you've already addressed it pretty succinctly.

 

[OilUzer]

You would think under some conditions, low viscosity oil can increase friction since it may not be able to lubricate as well. Lower moft or hths ...

Edit:
Is that true or oversimplified ?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by OilUzer
You would think under some conditions, low viscosity oil can increase friction since it may not be able to lubricate as well. Lower moft or hths ...

Edit:
Is that true or oversimplified ?


Yep, and exactly why more wear happens when MOFT and HTHS gets too low.

If you were refering to wemay's comment about friction of thinner oil, he was talking about shearing friction of the oil itself (thinner oil has less shearing friction), not the friction caused by actual metal-to-metal contact due to inadequate lubrication.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by OilUzer
You would think under some conditions, low viscosity oil can increase friction since it may not be able to lubricate as well. Lower moft or hths ...

Edit:
Is that true or oversimplified ?


It will, look at the Stribeck Curve...The Y Axis is friction the X-Axis is viscosity, surface speed (RPM) and Pressure (load/Area)...for any given application power consumption will be proportional to friction (left axis) times RPM.

Look at the RHS, the rising part of the curve...that's the effect of increasing viscosity...it increases oil film thickness, reduces incidences of parts contact...and increases friction (through drag, not surface contact). Regime used to be called the "zero wear" area.

To the left of the minimum friction point is boundary/mixed and contact...lower the viscosity too much and the friction, as you predicted, rises markedly...through surface contact, and wear.

The addition of Friction Modifiers and Anti Wear Compounds operate in this contact/semi contact regime, and if they are any good, the extend the flat bottom, as shown, and delay the onset of the rapid frictional rise (and wear)...this used to be called the "controlled wear" area.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted by Shannow
The above I thought I posted before work, so clicked send 12 hours later.

BTW, how come I've got two trolls trolling me now ???

First, don't flatter yourself. I have no intention of ever trolling you. You don't seem to appreciate any humor, but that's OK.

Second, how many times I need to say this? Stop projecting!

You have this thing ongoing with StevieC and from what I can tell you're the one who has been trolling him. "Galileo effect?" You even changed your signature line to that. If that's not trolling, what is?

My post wasn't even about BOQI but you pick one line from it and make an entire post to attack and reattack BOQI again. It was about Noack vs. base-oil quality.

No ILSAC/API oil can have Noack greater than 15%. None of the oils posted had any certifications except for the TGMO, which had a nice 13% Noack. You take uncertified junk oils and portray 0W-16 as a volatile oil. You can make a 5W-30 out of Group I and it will have 30% Noack. What's your point?

So, Ravenol 0W-16 has 6.8% Noack. PAO-based M1 AFE 0W-16 probably has a Noack well below 10, if not about the same as Ravenol's. The GTL-based TGMO 0W-16 has 13% Noack. What are you arguing about again? Oh, I forgot. You're often here for the sake of arguing.

Originally Posted by Shannow
Yet ALL the 0W20s here tested by PQIA are OVER 10 ???

Hmm, how about this one?

http://pqiadata.org/Nissan_0W20.html

Or the lowly, $3.20-a-quart Super Tech High-Mileage 0W-20:

http://pqiadata.org/SuperTech_HM_SYN_0W20.html

By the way, only a handful 5W-30 oils tested by PQIA have Noack between 9 - 10%, despite the thicker base oil.

Why? Because there is no need to make oils with Noack lower than necessary for OEM certifications since it would otherwise unnecessarily increase the base-oil costs. dexos1 0W-16 will have Noack less than 13%. It can probably be made even with Group III without any GTL or PAO. If it's necessary, you can make a 0W-16 with a very low Noack -- just order the 6.8% Noack PAO-based Ravenol 0W-16 if you want.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by Gokhan
By the way, only a handful 5W-30 oils tested by PQIA have Noack between 9 - 10%, despite the thicker base oil.


Valvoline Advanced is one of them FTW.

 

[OilUzer]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by OilUzer
You would think under some conditions, low viscosity oil can increase friction since it may not be able to lubricate as well. Lower moft or hths ...

Edit:
Is that true or oversimplified ?


Yep, and exactly why more wear happens when MOFT and HTHS gets too low.

If you were refering to wemay's comment about friction of thinner oil, he was talking about shearing friction of the oil itself (thinner oil has less shearing friction), not the friction caused by actual metal-to-metal contact due to inadequate lubrication.


Good catch. Yes, i thought wemay was talking about contact.

 

[OilUzer]

@shannow,
Thanks for the explanation and the graphs!

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted by Gokhan
So, Ravenol 0W-16 has 6.8% Noack. PAO-based M1 AFE 0W-16 probably has a Noack well below 10, if not about the same as Ravenol's. The GTL-based TGMO 0W-16 has 13% Noack. What are you arguing about again? Oh, I forgot. You're often here for the sake of arguing.

Originally Posted by Shannow
Yet ALL the 0W20s here tested by PQIA are OVER 10 ???

Hmm, how about this one?

http://pqiadata.org/Nissan_0W20.html

Or the lowly, $3.20-a-quart Super Tech High-Mileage 0W-20:

http://pqiadata.org/SuperTech_HM_SYN_0W20.html

By the way, only a handful 5W-30 oils tested by PQIA have Noack between 9 - 10%, despite the thicker base oil.

Why? Because there is no need to make oils with Noack lower than necessary for OEM certifications since it would otherwise unnecessarily increase the base-oil costs. dexos1 0W-16 will have Noack less than 13%. It can probably be made even with Group III without any GTL or PAO. If it's necessary, you can make a 0W-16 with a very low Noack -- just order the 6.8% Noack PAO-based Ravenol 0W-16 if you want.

By the way, SonofJoe, who only agrees me when there is a blue moon is saying in another thread that all things being equal, Noack should get lower when the viscosity spread gets smaller within a given cold range, such as going from 0W-20 to 0W-16, 0W-12, and 0W-8, Noack should actually decrease (all things being equal).

Originally Posted by SonofJoe
I'm not sure the basic premise here is correct...

All things being equal, a 0W8 should have a lower Noack than a 0W16 which in turn should have a lower Noack than a 0W20. As you decrease the KV100 of the oil, you should incrementally back out VII from.the blend. VII is a high molecular weight polymer which has relatively poor cold flow properties. As you back out VII, you leave behind a 'hole' for proportionately more of the heavier base oil in the blend. Fill the hole & for a given CCS, the Noack will drop.

In fact, I covered this nicely a while ago myself:

Do you think that's "thick" oil? Think again!

If you look at the table, you can see that Noack decreases when you go from 0W-40 to 0W-30 and then to 0W-20 if you use the same type of base oil for all:

If you understand what base-oil quality means and how oil blending works, such things become very clear. I often emphasize the importance of base-oil quality here because it's a very important aspect of oil formulation.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by Gokhan


Originally Posted by Shannow
Yet ALL the 0W20s here tested by PQIA are OVER 10 ???

Hmm, how about this one?

http://pqiadata.org/Nissan_0W20.html

Or the lowly, $3.20-a-quart Super Tech High-Mileage 0W-20:

http://pqiadata.org/SuperTech_HM_SYN_0W20.html

.


:sigh:..."here" included a link to the PQIA sheet which had multiple 0W20s...that's what I referenced, NOT every single oil referenced by them...I had neither the time, nor the inclination...I was out the door at the time...nor did I have the time to identify every 0W16 on the plant with a VI of 160, which clearly evidences the presence of VIIs...

Here's the correct quote...

Originally Posted by Shannow
Originally Posted by Gokhan
NOACK is a nonissue. 6 cSt PAO NOACK = 6.4%. 4cSt PAO NOACK < 14%.

0W-8 KV100 < 6.1 cSt. A PAO-based 0W-8 would have NOACK < 10%.

Indeed, M1 0W-16 is PAO-based. TGMO 0W-16 made by Exxon Mobil is GTL-based.


Yet ALL the 0W20s here tested by PQIA are OVER 10 ???

http://www.pqiamerica.com/June 2014/consolidated 0W-20.html


Note...the link to the PQIA page...

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by Gokhan

If you look at the table, you can see that Noack decreases when you go from 0W-40 to 0W-30 and then to 0W-20 if you use the same type of base oil for all:

LOL, given that I introduced you to the chart, I'm familiar with it, and am pretty sure that I was using it to explain why I was not in favour of uber Viscosity indices which were your flavour of the month in the past.