Supertech Synthetic 10W-30, 1999 Toyota Camry, 5S-FE, 4572 miles

[bruce381]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mannix:
Granted, the remaining elements will show their spectral code, but if an oil starts with .26% calium with a virgin sample, and shows .20% after 4500 miles, as on this sample, than the loss is from depletion. Calcium is ashless, unlike mg & zinc.

---

Sorry recheck LZ/oronite or any additive suppliers website Calcium is a metal and a ASH forming additive.

CA,ZN,MG are ALL ash producing additive METALs look up "sulfated ash".

In fact LZ had a basic formula to figure the "sulfated ash" content of PCMO/HDEO without having to burn a sample and they had values to plug in for the basic ASH forming metals and CA is one of them.

Also Depleted???

Unless volitle where does the CA go??
even when oxidized to sludge it will show on IR or FTIR unless it falls out into a sludge layer or evaporates the CA will always show up.

bruce

 

[bruce381]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mannix:
Calcium compunds are "ashless" additives therfore deplete with no by-product or atomic trace, unlike zddp.

---

Sorry wrong
Oronite password website

"ASH - inorganic residue of combustion. Lubricating oil detergent additives contain metallic derivatives, such as barium, calcium, and magnesium sulfonates, that are common sources of ash. Ash deposits can impair engine efficiency and power. See detergent, sulfated ash."

Bruce

 

[427Z06]

Thanks, bruce381. Looks like my original analysis was correct. Unless we're dealing with some super secret über calcium compound.

 

[X72]

Like I said earlier, I appreciate all the comments, even when I don't agree with all of them. I learn a lot. I suspect that there are many of us out there who enjoy discussion/argument/banter.

I didn't mention earlier that when I changed the PCV valve, I was able to get a small peek inside. I saw some varnish but no black goo.

Chevron Supreme is an excellent oil, but it is not the "value" buy here on the East Coast versus the West Coast. We don't get those 49 cent after rebate deals here.

The ST synthetic comes in 5 quart jugs at $12.24 ($2.49/qt plus tax). That is very close to the price of most conventional oils here. I think I saw Chevron Supreme at Wal-Mart last time I was there and I think it was somewhere in the $2 to $2.29/qt range.

The gallon (4 quart) jugs of Rotella Synthetic are a great deal at Wal-Mart, but I prefer a 30W oil because I suspect I will get better fuel economy (especially seeing that the ST syn shears to a 20W).

Yes, I know that in the scheme of things the price of motor oil is insignificant. But aren't we the kind of people who like to argue about how many "angels can dance on the head of a pin?" We split hairs about wear metals that vary by only a few ppm.

 

[X72]

Here is a link to UOA I did in a Toyota 1MZ-FE engine using Mobil 1 EP. The TBN went down to 1.8.

http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=002895

That UOA was done while running the car on regular gas. Since then have switched to premium and have gotten slightly better fuel economy and I hope it will be slightly "less hard" on the oil.

 

[Mannix]

Now I see whats going on here. You guys are using old technology for your thinking. That's the danger of copying and pasting from additive suplier websites which have not been updated in several years. I believe that Ornite website is quoting technology from the 90's or possibly the 80's. The advent of SL and SM has driven the need for alternative additive types. Former calcium/maganese compounds did contain metal additives which caused soot and ash, which left behind traces of the original compound in the lubricating fluid. With the advent of new specifications, especially cleanliness specs., new ashless additive compounds were necessitated. Calcium is combined with boron, or borate which is deposited on the lubricating unit, and is deleted from the lubricating fluid. It shows on every UOA you see when the calcium content is 1000 to 1600 ppm when an oil starts out at 1900 to 2500 ppm. We need to be careful with copying and pasting from mfgs. websites. They are not state of the art!

 

[Mannix]

For those of you that still have doubts, Chevron-Texaco has a technical support line: 1-800-lube-tek. Call there and ask for Will Escobar. I have dealt with him on regular basis, and I have also had the pleasure of going to school with him. You can talk to a real person, and get real answers. Will has a wealth of information on additive technology. I believe he can put arest to all the issues, but beware he has a political leaning towrds chevrons strategy of high moly compounds for meeting spec, one that I do not agree with for Passenger cars and light trucks. To me the negatives outweigh the benefits, but that is just my opinion.

 

[jsharp]

This oil is one of those that almost everyone here has labeled as marginal and with a weak additive package. But the wear numbers don't look that bad in this case. Probably as much the Toyota engine as the oil.

But, after the discussion in this thread I'm going to try this oil in my sons 3.8L Taurus for 5K miles and see how it does. It has M1 0w-30 in it now. It might make for an interesting comparison...

 

[427Z06]

This might be a good example on why us amateur tribologist need to leave serious UOA analysis up to professionals like Terry.

Mannix, thanks for sticking around.

 

[bruce381]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mannix:
Now I see whats going on here. You guys are using old technology for your thinking. That's the danger of copying and pasting from additive suplier websites which have not been updated in several years. I believe that Ornite website is quoting technology from the 90's or possibly the 80's. The advent of SL and SM has driven the need for alternative additive types. Former calcium/maganese compounds did contain metal additives which caused soot and ash, which left behind traces of the original compound in the lubricating fluid. With the advent of new specifications, especially cleanliness specs., new ashless additive compounds were necessitated. Calcium is combined with boron, or borate which is deposited on the lubricating unit, and is deleted from the lubricating fluid. It shows on every UOA you see when the calcium content is 1000 to 1600 ppm when an oil starts out at 1900 to 2500 ppm. We need to be careful with copying and pasting from mfgs. websites. They are not state of the art!

---

What part of CA and MG have NOW made them NON metallic???

Yes new additves syetems are out BUT
basic chemisrty is still chemistry and CA is still a ash forming additive and most are sulfonate and phenate and over based CA has been around for at least 15 years.

Please show any INFO on the new "CA" additives that they are "ashless" I would love to see anything about it.

I'll call your buddy at Oronite a few guys higher up CRC/Oronite/LZ/Infinium and will bet you lunch they also agree with me that CA is still ash forming and so is MG, ZN, BA,MO.

I have been at this 32 years sorry but you are miss informed.

You are wrong about ash and ashless additives You claim to know your subject, I do and you need to your learn basics.

And the boron is in the form of a most common Tallate ester NOT "combined" with CA.

** everyone else but not me.
bruce

 

[bruce381]

Better yet I will be at CRC/Oronite Richmond Triboligy Labs on Thursday and I will ask a few research chemists I know about this new NON ash CA/Borate maybe I will learn something new and if so I will post it.
bruce

 

[Mannix]

I am sure after speaking to your contacts regarding Calcium/borate, ester based additive technology we will put and end to this issue. Please re=post when convenient

 

[buster]

quote:

---

but beware he has a political leaning towrds chevrons strategy of high moly compounds for meeting spec, one that I do not agree with for Passenger cars and light trucks. To me the negatives outweigh the benefits, but that is just my opinion.

---

Mannix, what is wrong with Moly? Redline, Liquid Cosworth, Havoline all use 500ppm of Moly and some use more. I'd like your opinion on this.

 

[buster]

Thanks Mannix for the info. Hope you feel better. I'm not sure if the overbased calcium found in Mobil 1/Amsoil/GC is the same as the overbased calcium borate you are referring too. What are your opinions on the major synthetics like Amsoil, Mobil etc.?

 

[Mannix]

I really like they way valvoline durablend and maxlife is formulated. Although maxlife used a stromg moly content, they also dont skimp on he calcium compounds that are necessary for overall high performance in passenger vehicles. I dont see the need for full syn's in passenger vehicle except maybe in turbo applications for extended drains. BUt other than that I like Valv durablend and maxlife(for older vehicles)
Castrol GTx, Supertech synth

 

[buster]

Thanks Mannix. I know when I spoke wit RL, they still like the moly and high levels of ZDDP simply bc in high performance applications, they felt it still is the best on the market. I would agree though that it's not necessary for passenger cars. *It's obvious there are a lot of ways to formulate a good oil.

 

[buster]

quote:

---

I have seen a fellow by the name of Russ Knize trashed because he questioned the need for oil analysis and trends with results in the low PPM range as being in the noise floor, which they are

---

Mannix, do you feel oil analysis accurately can determine engine wear and show which oil is better than another? All things being equal. I know RL feels the same about oil analysis as Russ Knize does.

 

[Mannix]

My opinion is that oil analysys really has minimal value in analyzing the quality of the lubricating fluid. It is of value for establishing trends within an engine. I have baselines provided by the blenders and additive suppliers but they are baselines to show any detioration of the fluid caused by a mechanical malfunction of the engine. But to say that an oil is weak or strong based on an arbitrary analysis on a healthy engine really makes no sense. To say that an engine has incurred serious bearing wear because of a coolant leak makes perfect sense as evidence to implicate a problem.
These Low numbers we see on an oil analysys <20ppm are in the noise floor. 50 ppm can be used to establish a trend, but if it's within the nora\mal reange for that type of engine, it is of no concern. YOu need to establish trends first.

 

[buster]

Thanks Mannix. Redline told me basically the same thing. Things like coolant leaks etc., oil analysis is beneficial. But as you said, these low, small differences in ppm wear are so insignificant. It's also hard to determine what is always wear, as seen with Redline and Pb.

In a healthy engine, practially EVERY oil that I've seen does a good job. Rarely is wear above 25ppm unless a coolant leak or some other variable is causing contamination. Thanks for the good info.

 

[GROUCHO MARX]

Mannix, most importantly, get well!