Supplementing GIII,IV and V oils with Dino oil to Improve Boundry Lubrication????

[JohnBrowning]

Ok, What do you guys think of this. I have some M1 0W40 and I also have lots of RTS 5W40. GIII and higher base stocks are supposed to be poor choices for boundry lubrication. The way I understand it they reley entirely on their additive package to make up for this.

I was thinking that adding something like Power Service Diesel Oil Lube Extender to GIII and higher base stocks would be a good idea. I think it is 50-60Wt. G1 oil with lots of ZDDP and Calcium. I am thinking 20% of this to 80% GIII,IV or V should make for a good blend? Any thoughts???

 

[Bryanccfshr]

` Why not let the oils work as formulated? If you add a more polar oil to the other oil you could end up keeping the boundary lubrication package from doing its job. The only reason grp 1 is used for the diesel extender is its ability to solve the additives(and it's cheap).

[ May 13, 2006, 07:33 PM: Message edited by: Bryanccfshr ]

 

[G-MAN]

 

[Bryanccfshr]

Was it me?

 

[G-MAN]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bryanccfshr:
Was it me?

---

No.

 

[buster]

 

[Jay]

Why water down good dino oil with that synthetic stuff?

 

[Whimsey]

It would be interesting to see the UOA of this oil mixture after at least 5,000 miles but preferably after 10,000 miles, which the unmixed Mobil 1 0W-40 should be able to do. And do the same UOA with the straight Mobil 1 0W-40. I understand motor oil companies are using small amounts of Group I to dissolve/mix their additive package even in semi synthetic and possibly "fully" synthetic oils. I believe Schaeffers does or did this. But I doubt that it's 20% Group I.

From your previous postings I realize you're a proponent of the "thicker the better" group of BITOG's, and I respect that. Such as wanting to add 20% of a 50-60 weight oil to a 40 weight oil. But I just don't remember you posting actual UOA's of your personal experience with oils like some many of the other members. And even in the face of evidence from the 100's of UOA's from "thinner" oils showing real good wear numbers you still deride "thinner" oils and their ability to protect an engine, in other ran racing usage of course

.

Whimsey

 

[bruce381]

"GIII and higher base stocks are supposed to be poor choices for boundry lubrication. The way I understand it they reley entirely on their additive package to make up for this."

not really much practicle difference tho PIB will show a smaller wear scar than a GPII oil.

And there is also data that shows GPIII/PAO have as good as or better wear scar than a GPII BUT older GPI could/did have much higher sulfur and as such had a lower scar diamiter.

IMHO you would be better of just running 1 grade higher vis if it bothers you.

I would not worry about it.

bruce

 

[427Z06]

Pressure/viscosity relationships? I believe Grp III rocks at low temps. JB is up north. He wants that valvetrain protection when he revs that Camry to 6K while defrosting the windshield.

 

[TallPaul]

The Power Service Diesel Oil Lube Extender is a zddp adder among other things. There are some threads here on it. I think it was about 3500 ppm zinc and phosphorus. I like the idea, but would be reluctant to go too far beyond the mix ratio that Power Service recommends which I think was around 7 percent, unless we are pretty sure of its base oil and that there are no components that would be bad in higher concentration). You could make up the remainder of your 20% Group I with Valvoline All Climate or some similar oil.

 

[Titan]

What I "think" about the mixture is pretty much worthless, because I do not have a degree in which I studied oil formulation, nor did I then specialize in internal combustion engine lubrication. Or, from a practical standpoint, I have not been part of any scientifically set up, well designed study of wear patterns on IC engines as related to tweaking of commercially available oils/additives.

Until you find someone with those kinds of backgrounds, or something similar, in some ways, they're guessing as much as the next guy.

 

[JohnBrowning]

427Z06, I am laughing my but off as I type!!!! I basicly got the Power Service dirt cheap on clearance at Walmart. Normaly I would simply use my SX-UP with M1 0W40 or 5W40 and call it good. I simply could not pass up the clearanced additive. The same thing is true of the Rotella-T Synthetic it too was priced to sell!

I did not buy the Diesel Lube Extender to thicken up the oil. I am really not a big fan of thickening oil I simply buy the viscosity I want. The weight of the additive's carrier oil was not known to me when I bought it. I was after the ZDDP and Calcium and the three quart jugs of the Lube Extender were on sale for $7 each.

If you look at the M1R UOA of mine on here and the one from my third run with SX-UP you can see the extreme uptake of additives from my engine. My engine and driveing style uses up additives in a hurry.You can also see this same high uptake of additive from most of the people driveing 2AZ-FE powered Toyota's.The wear rates remain low for this engine but the additive levels are always off more then one would expect with this engine. This engine also seems to use up TBN and generates a lot of insolubles with most common driveing cycles. The ZDDP and Calcium in the Diesel Lube Extender should help with these issues. I do realise it is over kill.

My main issue with the G-I base stock if it is in fact G-I is insolubles???? Is this stuff going to raise my insolubles. I am hopeing that the 20% will allow for the benifit of added AW additives with out hurting antioxidation properties of the other 80% of the oil in the sump!

I sent out a sample of my oil to OAI over a month ago and have not heard from them. I need to call them monday and see what is wrong with them!

 

[JohnBrowning]

G-Man II, If you are going to laugh at me you can at least put it in writeing so we can all join in!!!! I know I know I have stepped off the deep end. It has just been too long since I played around with things!!! So now I am going to play a bit!

P.S. I am glad I at least added to your amusement if nothing else!!Cheers!

 

[Rodbuckler]

G Man II or others:
What is the best combination of molecules sizes as far as lubricity of the base stock is concerned for a given viscosity?

1. Uniform
2. Continuous gradation of some sort
3. Gap graded
4. Other gradation
5. Depends on type of oil molecules

John Browning and the rest of us home blenders really need to know.

 

[Titan]

Rodbuckler, the answer to your question is one of the great answers in lubrication science. There's even another thread now essentially asking for the same answers. I can see how the answer might favor mineral oil in the short term as far as providing better engine protection BECAUSE the different parts of an engine might do better with different size base oil molecules...like you find in mineral oil.

Synthetics are much more homogenous. I assume that is where the additives come into play. By that, I mean, if you take an homogenous synthetic oil, whose molecular structure is perfect to protect the cam lobes, but not as good for the main bearings (just picking two parts of the engine at random), the additives would be best to be tuned to protect the main bearings, and vice-versa.

THAT is why I say, don't mix just because you HOPE that the new mixture will be good. If you mix, you should verify the end result is doing a good job in your engine.

One last thought...why couldn't a synthetic company combine molecular sizes to produce an oil whose different size molecules each protect the different part requirements? IOW, a synthetic oil doesn't HAVE to be homogenous, does it? Still, I bet additives are probably more effective than varying molecular size/structure of the base oils.

 

[sprintman]

JB I'm very surprised you have done this. Your a highly respected member of this forum yet you expose yourself to this. I'll put it down to a 'bad hair day' and hope you get back to your excellent normal posts...s

 

[Jaybird]

I may be off base here..but unless we are possibly considering a base oil like a groupV ester, there aren't any base oils that will perform at the barrier rhelm.

Do we not depend primarily on adds for this regime?

 

[427Z06]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jaybird:
I may be off base here..but unless we are possibly considering a base oil like a groupV ester, there aren't any base oils that will perform at the barrier rhelm.

Do we not depend primarily on adds for this regime?

---

I'm guessing JB meant to say the "elastohydrodynamic" (EHD) lubrication.

 

[Jaybird]

No, actually I meant what I said.
I am under the impression that fluid film lubrication is handled by base oil fluids.
And that the base oils alone do not perform past that film being ruptured. (asperitites actually contacting)
Once that occcurs we must depend on the additives, be they AW or FM's to protect at the boundary level.
And I was also under the impression that some bases, specifically esters, could perform past the fluid film being violated and help to protect at the barrier, or boundary level as the AW or FM additives do.

I'm trying to learn all I can about this and am hoping for some indepth discussion, especially if I am off base and missing the points here.

427, are you telling me that naked base oils can perform past the fluid film regime?
I thought I also understood that fluids could also perform at the EHD level if conditions existed to allow it, but past that we must depend on something other than the bases. And I also thought that esters would perform past what any other current base would and also protect at the barrier, or boundary, level.

(shrug) perhaps a laughing icon would be the proper response, and if so, I need to go back and do my homework.