Synth. Oil has only 11% the BL Wear as Conv. Oil

[CrawfishTails]

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/07/f17/ft014_qu_2014_o.pdf, on page 12, "Rolling-sliding bench tests on MTM2 at GM". Forget the IL stuff in there for now, although its cool and has been discussed on these forums a bit.

That is the first time I've seen a comparison between a conventional and synthetic for wear rates. Assuming that Lubrizol, Oak Ridge, and GM engineers know how to run a proper wear rate test, this is startling to me. (The condition is Boundary Lubrication (BL), not the conditions where an oil film separates the parts. When there is an oil film (EHL), no wear occurs, note Stribeck Curve.)

Questions:

1. Is this typical? This is Mobil Conventional vs. Mobil 1.

2. Additive packages between these two oils looks similar. Actually the conventional has more moly, so it should "win"! Mobil 1 has a bit of boron, which helps. Those are the major differences in additive packages that show up on PQIA's and BITOG's VOA lists anyway. So, obvious question becomes: Does Group III Mobil 1 basestocks account for the drastic reduction in Boundary Layer (BL) wear rates?

3. Or is it Mobil1's component they use to put on the bottles called "Supersyn"?

4. Anybody know of any more solid quantifiable looks at a comparison between the wear rates of synth vs. conventional oils? I've seen that Mobil 1 scores an 18 nm (out of max 90 nm), as does Castrol GTX Synblend (now Magnatec), on the Sequence IVA, as published in marketing bar charts, but that really doesn't cover much comparison ground.

 

[Nickdfresh]

Great find...

 

[SumpChump]

And where on the BL performance scale would. TGMO 0W-20 fall.

 

[CrawfishTails]

Originally Posted By: SumpChump
And where on the BL performance scale would. TGMO 0W-20 fall.


Wish that 'proprietary' performance info was available.
Funny, its almost like the GM engineers involved in that Mobil Conventional vs. Mobil 1 wear rate comparison didn't clear it with the Mobil marketing department before showing that bar chart! I mean, Mobil hasn't ever told us directly a measurable benefit of using their conventional vs. Mobil1, they always just say "Trust us, our Mobil1 is better, although we won't say how much better."

 

[GenesisGuy70]

I could read and understand this so much better if they hadn't used abbreviations so heavily.

 

[Koz1]

Does it not say 8% the wear rate (92% less) of conventional.
As well its a proposed SAE XW - 8 instead of - 30. CST 1.85.

 

[CrawfishTails]

BL = Boundary Lubrication (aka, metal-to-metal, only AW additives or polar polymers in the way to wear down.) This occurs on the top ring near TDC, or in bearings at start-up and idle, on cams at low speeds.

EHL and HL = Elastohydrodynamic Lubrication, and fully Hydrodynamic Lubrication, where you've got a thick enough oil film actually separating the parts, near zero wear obviously.

ML = Mixed Lubrication, where the metal-to-metal is mostly happening. I see it as the microscopic peaks of the surface topology are touching slightly, but not fully metal-to-metal grinding.

 

[CrawfishTails]

Originally Posted By: Koz1
Does it not say 8% the wear rate (92% less) of conventional.


I was obsessively focusing on the difference between Mobil Conventional oil vs. Mobil 1, forgetting IL performance for the moment. 1.7 / 15 = 0.11, or 11%.

 

[Koz1]

Originally Posted By: CrawfishTails
Originally Posted By: Koz1
Does it not say 8% the wear rate (92% less) of conventional.


I was obsessively focusing on the difference between Mobil Conventional oil vs. Mobil 1, forgetting IL performance for the moment. 1.7 / 15 = 0.11, or 11%.


Ok gotcha ya.
It helps to read the whole post.
That is a Crazy HUGE difference between Syn and Conventional, I agree completely.

 

[volk06]

Looks like this is leading up to the new 0w16 engine oils.

 

[CrawfishTails]

One other oil wear rate comparison came out a while back, where Kendall GT-1 semi-syn was compared to a Brand X conventional in a 4.6L Ford modular V8, and the Kendall had a lot less wear on some parts subject to a lot of BL (rocker pins). It was a Kendall marketing test. Anybody know of some conventional vs. syn wear comparisons out there?

 

[4wheeldog]

The additive they were testing certainly seems to be extremely worthwhile. I wonder how costly it might be.

They tested at a level of 1%.......I wonder if future testing will try different, lower levels. This could be the next additive break through.

 

[Lex94]

Nice! Thanks!

The old Mobil Clean oil cleaned by using Mobil-proprietary Metal-to-Metal Scrubbing Action(R)(TM)

 

[Ken2]

THEY'RE TAKING OUT THE ZINC!

Heads will explode, almost as fast as engines will explode.


Sounds like very interesting research. Run a pool guessing how many years away this is? 10?

 

[CrawfishTails]

Originally Posted By: Lex94
Nice! Thanks!

The old Mobil Clean oil cleaned by using Mobil-proprietary Metal-to-Metal Scrubbing Action(R)(TM)


Yeah, kind of what I was wondering: Is Mobil Clean 5w-30 just that bad? Or does any conventional score about that badly?

 

[4wheeldog]

Kind of puts the lie to all those folks that espouse conventional being virtually no different from synthetic.

 

[HKPolice]

I don't think the difference matters all that much. Blackstone's blog even said that out of all of UOAs they've done, they found no significant difference between dino & synth when oil is changed at recommended intervals and the engine was in good mechanical shape to begin with.

Even page 5 of this PDF states that only 5-10% of engine lubrication is boundary layer which is what the test is for. This is also why dozens of UOA with moly additives or high moly oil shows no difference in wear numbers.

About this new additive:
The fuel econ savings of this additive is due to the lower viscosity oil used in the test (page 11, 5.38 cST vs M1 5w30 @ 11.38 cST). If this additive was put in regular 5w30 oil with the same cST as M1 then I doubt we'll see any significant increase in fuel econ. IMO it should've been tested against 0w20 but then the result will probably be under 1% and therefore wouldn't attract as much funding.

This additive does have a lot of potential when used with future super low viscosity oils but considering how most Americans love thick oil....

 

[Lex94]

Originally Posted By: CrawfishTails
Originally Posted By: Lex94
Nice! Thanks!

The old Mobil Clean oil cleaned by using Mobil-proprietary Metal-to-Metal Scrubbing Action(R)(TM)


Yeah, kind of what I was wondering: Is Mobil Clean 5w-30 just that bad? Or does any conventional score about that badly?


Obviously Mobil Clean was just that bad. Conventional vs PAO - Conventional (G2) has superior lubricity to PAO.

 

[Shannow]

Crawfish Tails,
great find, and thanks for posting.

Interested that the (dino) ASTM reference 20W30 is no additive, no VII...makes the new 15W30 no VII diesel oils look more realistic.

I like the fact that thy acknowledge the move to thinner oils provides wear challenges to overcome...

But the Ionic Liquid really does seem to answer the shortcomings.

I'm betting that for GF7, the OEMs will be pushing for this technology, purely so that they can downgrade the size of the emissions systems....given the sponsorship of the research, it's probably coming to the dexos specs.

Wonder how this new technology works with mixers...half traditional and half IL technology may not add up to 1 full protection package.

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: HKPolice
I don't think the difference matters all that much. Blackstone's blog even said that out of all of UOAs they've done, they found no significant difference between dino & synth when oil is changed at recommended intervals and the engine was in good mechanical shape to begin with.

Even page 5 of this PDF states that only 5-10% of engine lubrication is boundary layer which is what the test is for. This is also why dozens of UOA with moly additives or high moly oil shows no difference in wear numbers.

About this new additive:
The fuel econ savings of this additive is due to the lower viscosity oil used in the test (page 11, 5.38 cST vs M1 5w30 @ 11.38 cST). If this additive was put in regular 5w30 oil with the same cST as M1 then I doubt we'll see any significant increase in fuel econ. IMO it should've been tested against 0w20 but then the result will probably be under 1% and therefore wouldn't attract as much funding.

This additive does have a lot of potential when used with future super low viscosity oils but considering how most Americans love thick oil....


My thoughts as well.