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

[Mannix]

molybdenum compounds in certain quantities reduce friction. Once they pass a certain level threhold they become in providing extreme pressure and anti-wear protection. In my opinion,passenger cars and trucks are better served using technology that uses compounds that have wide spectrum uses, such as overbased calcium borate technology for detergent/dipesant, anti-wear, friction reduction, and extreme pressure. Using high quantities of moly is old technology geared towards high perfomance applications and we are better served by using state of the art compounds that deliver wide spectrum performance. By using high moly, you can delete other additives that are in my opinion, more beneficial to the consumer to meet spec. I like to think of it as cheating.(again, in my opinion)

Thanks to all for exercising my brain while I am on recovery from a stroke.

 

[Winston]

Mannix,

Please stick around. There are some grumpy posters on this board. Other knowledgeable people get upset when someone points out that they might be incorrect. There are also a lot of people that just read and never post. Don't let the few grumps scare you away. We have lost some knowledgeable people because their feelings were hurt.

I really had a hard time understanding where the calcium went, until you stated that it was deposited on the metal. I know that Boron is deposited on the metal too (sometimes). I could understand that for the first few oil changes with this additive technology, the calcium will "dissappear" from the UOA since it is left on the metal. However, after a few oil changes, wont the metal "take-up" all the calcium it can handle? Where does the calcium go then?

 

[bruce381]

Additves that are NOT volitle will only drop in value when they are taken out of solution or diluted with fresh oil.

They will drop out as in falling out into a sludge layer or on filter as sludge.

Or if burned up as in cumbustion chamber ring leakage or blow by into PVC etc.

Active additives will "stick" to a point on metal surfaces but will not continue to do so after the surface is "coated" as in ZDDP or Phos or sulfur componds will do once acdtive film is formed transfer stops.
bruce

 

[Winston]

quote:

---

Originally posted by bruce381:
...once additive film is formed transfer stops.
bruce

---

All that you wrote is clear and makes perfect sense. My question relates to how much additive does it take to form "additive film"?

 

[bruce381]

Not much
few percent IMHO at Most.
Additve depletion is more of an oxidation/reaction than reduces or stops the additves intended effects.
bruce

 

[John Hilmer]

There is so much going on in this thread that it swamps my rookie mind.

However if as Mannix says, things below 20 to 50 PPM are in the noise floor it begs the question as I see it, that much of the speculation by many folks here is rather a mute point.

Yes, I'm a rookie and probably not understanding all of this. I would like to, and I'll bet other rookies like me would also, like to see some simple (understandable) resolution to this discussion relevent to the "Noise Floor" and the chemistry.

My ash is looking forward to something a bit less liquid.

In real simple terms what is the noise floor of a Blackstone read? What is the same thing for the other labs?

I don't think I've ever seen anything about this here. Why didn't I consider this earlier?

Meanwhile, I'll trust in Dyson labs for help.

John

 

[427Z06]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Hilmer:
I'll bet other rookies like me would also, like to see some simple (understandable) resolution to this discussion relevent to the "Noise Floor" and the chemistry.

---

A few of us have discussed this before. Here's part of the equation, corrosion (chemistry) versus wear. Which one are we seeing in a UOA?

http://www.swri.edu/4org/d08/petprod/ChemTests/Hi Temp Corrosion.pdf

 

[TooSlick]

Corrosive wear is a main source of wear, particularly when it comes to softer bearing materials....In fact you could even argue that corrosion is more damaging than mechanical or rubbing wear in that it's changing the physical/chemical properties of the affected substrates.

I'm still not buying that you can directly see additive depletion, except with selected compounds like boron and perhaps MoDTC.

TS

 

[427Z06]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TooSlick:
Corrosive wear is a main source of wear, particularly when it comes to softer bearing materials....In fact you could even argue that corrosion is more damaging than mechanical or rubbing wear in that it's changing the physical/chemical properties of the affected substrates.

---

I'll remember that next time you tell someone their ppm's in their UOA can be lowered with thicker oil.

 

[buster]

quote:

---

However if as Mannix says, things below 20 to 50 PPM are in the noise floor it begs the question as I see it, that much of the speculation by many folks here is rather a mute point.

---

It is back ground noise. When I look these reports I usually just focus on TBN, Flash point and viscosity. Most labs don't consider Fe a problem until it's over 150 ppm, Pb over 50ppm. Call Oil analyzers and they will tell you this also. People on here have become paranoid for no reason. I love the Mobil 1 and Fe/Valvetrain wear comments always brought up.

It's a joke.

It was also once thought by some members that lower levels of ZDDP are not a good thing and that thin oils are no good. They have been proven WRONG. Once again, the API and engineers who make these additives/oils know what they are doing.

 

[Jay]

Why wouldn't acids deplete calcium, an alkaline element? What gives oil its TBN if not calcium?

 

[bruce381]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jay:
Why wouldn't acids deplete calcium, an alkaline element? What gives oil its TBN if not calcium?

---

Acids do "deplete" or nutralize CA and other TBN additives BUT the CA and other Metalic Elements do not evaporate away they are still in the oil and WILL still show on a IR spectra. Organic amines/Anti Oxidants can also give TBN boost.

I was at CTC (Chevron Technical Center) today and had a tour of the triboligy and product verification labs WOW what a great place to work every toy you can imagine.

Anyway I asked
2 product group managers (PCMO and Gear)
2 Triboligists
1 Formulating Chemist
1 Global Lubricants manager for support to 1-800 lube tek
1 HDEO Sales Engineer
4 Lab Techs for condition monitoring

Even the Redline Product manager

All agreed with me that CA additives aswell as ZN,P,MO,MG are all ash forming.

No one knew of any ASHLESS CA detergents or any CA containing additves that are ASHLESS.

I was show engine valves and pistons that had ash from ZN, P, CA with the most ash suprisingly from P then CA then ZN.

I was told that the new Chevron SM oils are using mostly Oronite systems and that they prefer MO to the Borate esters no reason was given tho.

I asked about any "synergy" between CA and borate esters (2 different additves ) and the feeling I got is if there is any synergy they were still verifing if any. BUT Chevron appears to be in the NON borate MO camp.

Also asked about any AW/EP effect from high overbased CA 400 TBN and was told not much improvment seen that MO was better at that.

Also talked to Jim at lube tek he also agreed but did say that Will on the morning shift may have looked into a "ashless CA" and may have more info I will call him tomorrow.

bruce

 

[TooSlick]

427ZO6,

I believe that statement IS consistent with everything I've said in the past....

For example, the reason why the Delvac 1, 5w-40 consistently shows significantly low Fe levels than the Mobil 1, 5w-30 and 10w-30 is that there is less rubbing and/or corrosive wear going on. The vast majority of the UOA's I've seen would tend to support this point. It is particularly noticable in large displacement, pushrod engines that tend to shed a lot of iron from the timing chain and sprockets.

TS

 

[427Z06]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TooSlick:
I believe that statement IS consistent with everything I've said in the past....

For example, the reason why the Delvac 1, 5w-40 consistently shows significantly low Fe levels than the Mobil 1, 5w-30 and 10w-30 is that there is less rubbing and/or corrosive wear going on. The vast majority of the UOA's I've seen would tend to support this point.

---

I have yet to read one of your posts where you stated that Brand/Grade X will show significantly lower Fe levels than the Mobil 1, 5w-30 and 10w-30 because there is less corrosive wear going on. I have read posts where you stated Brand/Grade X will lower the Fe levels if used instead of Mobil 1, 5w-30 and 10w-30.

And as someone else stated above, the levels of Fe we're talking about is usually in the noise floor. Scaring someone into getting rid of 24 quarts of M1 because of slightly elevated Fe is a bit irresponsible in my book.

 

[427Z06]

quote:

---

Originally posted by bruce381:
Also talked to Jim at lube tek he also agreed but did say that Will on the morning shift may have looked into a "ashless CA" and may have more info I will call him tomorrow.

---

Thanks, bruce.

 

[bulwnkl]

Yes, thanks, Bruce. I find this thread very interesting.

 

[TooSlick]

427ZO6,

If you want an example, I beginning to think the GC 0w-30 may provide better protection from corrosion than Mobil 1. This could be why it shows very low iron levels even in engines that are seldomly used.

I don't advocate getting rid of oil you're already purchased and I don't see full bottles of Mobil 1 laying on the side of the highway.

So I rather doubt folks are chucking the stuff out.

TS

 

[buster]

Ted, you're very inconsistant. You used to preach that higher ZDDP levels were the reason M1 showed higher Fe and that was one reason why Amsoil showed lower Fe. Then it became corrosion. Then, once the GF-4/SM oils started trickling in, we started to see great UOA results, which showed lower ZDDP levels were not a problem with newer additives. German Castrol was just one of many.

I find it funny that a company like Amsoil that is supposed to be "cutting edge" consistantly follows Mobil's lead. Di-ester to PAO. Heavy 30wt oils to ligh 30wt oils.....see a pattern? And with these changes of lower ZDDP, and lower viscosity, engine wear has not changed via UOA's on BITOG. Of course the latest data also shows engines are lasting longer than ever.

 

[JohnBrowning]

My only point is that their is nothing outstanding about this UOA. It is typical UOA one would expect from almost any Toyota that is in good mechanical order with decent OCI. If something is going to be hyped up as much as I precived you were hypeing Supertec Synthetic I want to see something out of the ordinary. WHen you look at the price of this product it's performance is not that outstanding. I think that the lack of TBN retension is a serious issue. I have no other concern other then that.

I could actual care less what type of calcium is being used in this product given it's other limitations. I was not contesting in anyway the specific make up of the additive package.I think that their are better buys in terms of performance then this product. I would of been impressed if this UOA was of a GM V8 or 60°V6 and it had turned in numbers like that on a $12 a gallon product.

 

[Winston]

quote:

---

WHen you look at the price of this product it's performance is not that outstanding.

---

You make that conclusion based on ONE UOA? Oh, OK.