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

[wemay]

Originally Posted By: 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.


Agreed. Blackstone and other companies that perform UOA provide the best 'test' results for real-world usage. Interesting read though, thanks for sharing.

 

[CrawfishTails]

Originally Posted By: HKPolice
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.


So, agreed an engine has about 5-10% of engine lubrication in BL. However, add to that 10-15% in ML. Note all engine wear occurs where there is BL & ML, none in EHL/HL. So 75% of all engine lube has zero wear. The 25% is where all the wear occurs. Top ring/cylinder wear when the piston reverses direction, slow speed cam lobes, crank/rod bearings during start-up, timing chain pin-links-teeth, all are the places the wear happens.

In other words, even though about 25% is BL-ML, thats the only game in town for wear.

 

[HKPolice]

Originally Posted By: CrawfishTails
Originally Posted By: HKPolice
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.


So, agreed an engine has about 5-10% of engine lubrication in BL. However, add to that 10-15% in ML. Note all engine wear occurs where there is BL & ML, none in EHL/HL. So 75% of all engine lube has zero wear. The 25% is where all the wear occurs. Top ring/cylinder wear when the piston reverses direction, slow speed cam lobes, crank/rod bearings during start-up, timing chain pin-links-teeth, all are the places the wear happens.

In other words, even though about 25% is BL-ML, thats the only game in town for wear.


The ratio of the different types of lubrication happening inside an engine varies depending on the thickness of the oil film during operation. The PDF quotes ~80% HL lube (where no wear occurs) which is probably based on the industry average 5w30 oil in use. That percentage will drop when using a thinner oil like 0w20 or the upcoming 0w16 which could raise BL/ML occurrence to 40-50%.

The lower amount of friction this additive provides in BL/ML is offset by the increased time the engine spends in BL/ML when using a thinner oil so the overall engine wear rate will be about the same as using an off the shelf oil. See page 13 of the PDF where they tested both oils in a GM V8 and the wear graph over time is similar overall but worse in AL wear.

The only difference is that since a thinner base oil is used, up to 2% fuel savings can be had vs 5w30 (11.38 cST), and maybe 1% advantage over 0w20. (5.38 cST vs ~8.5 cST of 0w20)

Remember, the goal of this research is to offer better fuel savings, not to offer better overall wear protection. Modern engines will already last 500K miles+ with proper maintenance, wear rate isn't an issue anymore.

 

[Nate1979]

Originally Posted By: wemay
Originally Posted By: 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.


Agreed. Blackstone and other companies that perform UOA provide the best 'test' results for real-world usage. Interesting read though, thanks for sharing.


Well Blackstone likes to toot their own horn but UOA is not wear rate. Not as long as you run an oil filter and their methods do not measure all particle sizes.

 

[HKPolice]

Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Originally Posted By: wemay
Originally Posted By: 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.


Agreed. Blackstone and other companies that perform UOA provide the best 'test' results for real-world usage. Interesting read though, thanks for sharing.


Well Blackstone likes to toot their own horn but UOA is not wear rate. Not as long as you run an oil filter and their methods do not measure all particle sizes.


Oil filters do not filter particles under 20microns. Thousands of fleets use UOAs to assess the condition of their vehicles, you're saying it's all useless? LOL

 

[CrawfishTails]

HKPolice, my points were simply to say all the wear occurs in BL+ML, regardless of what percentage of all the lubrication has it. You have correctly summarized the IL results in the paper. The subject of IL has been discussed before elsewhere, a good, but separate, subject.
In this thread, we were examining the bar chart that shows synthetic at 11% the wear rate of conventional oil in BL. Since all the wear occurs in BL and ML, this is significant.
Could be the MTM2 Mini-Traction Machine overstates the differences between conventional vs. synthetic. Ignoring all IL issues here.

 

[Nate1979]

Originally Posted By: HKPolice


Oil filters do not filter particles under 20microns. Thousands of fleets use UOAs to assess the condition of their vehicles, you're saying it's all useless? LOL

Of course they do. As an example the Fram Ultra is 99.5% efficient at 20 microns and 80 % @5 microns. The purpose of a UOA is to know the serviceability of the oil, not measure wear rates. I suggest you check out Doug Hillary's extensive posts on this subject.

 

[turtlevette]

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.


but all you guys keep saying a UOA does not measure wear. I see things get twisted around by many to support their view.

 

[Garak]

Don't confuse microanalysis with macroanalysis. Blackstone has a huge database of UOAs where at least they can glean some information. Don't forget that some who have posted here have done teardowns and have seen engines go hundreds of thousands of miles on conventional and remain within specifications.

The real concern is when someone takes two UOAs out of a hat and tries to compare wear that way.

 

[Oil Changer]

Ha! Yep. It is why myths continue to perpetuate.

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
I see things get twisted around by many to support their view.

 

[CrawfishTails]

It does seem a bit wrong to say Synthetics have about 11% of the wear of a Conventional motor oil, based on other evidence. Yet we know 100% of the wear occurs in BL & ML (metal-to-metal, no or little oil film). (Some wear may occur from acid etching with old, low TBN oils I suppose, but not much.)

Therefore, the Oak Ridge - GM - Lubrizol team must be smoking something funny. It would be nice if someone has corroboration of this result.

 

[wemay]

I believe the report is true. I just think a mosquito will be as dead with a fly swatter as with a shoe.

 

[GMorg]

So, soot abrasion, silica abrasion, cavitation, metal oxidation, and acids cause no wear? It's ALL Bl and ML?

"We" do not know that 100% of the wear occurs in boundary and mixed lubrication.

 

[4wheeldog]

Originally Posted By: wemay
I believe the report is true. I just think a mosquito will be as dead with a fly swatter as with a shoe.


I think this is the working situation. Not much wear is occuring, no matter what good quality, modern oil is used. The 11% is of a very, very small number, to start with.

 

[CrawfishTails]

Originally Posted By: GMorg
So, soot abrasion, silica abrasion, cavitation, metal oxidation, and acids cause no wear? It's ALL Bl and ML?

"We" do not know that 100% of the wear occurs in boundary and mixed lubrication.


All those contribute very little to total wear in EHL/HL. By definition, an oil film separates the metal parts in EHL/HL situations. Any good motor oil keeps oxidation way down, and acids are only a big factor if TBN is depleted. Small percentages, yes, big deal, no.

 

[Lex94]

Makes me want to use Mobil 1 0w40 in everything...yer right, Shannow.

 

[turtlevette]

the other thing I found interesting is that the test engine burned more than a quart of oil in 100 hours.

Yet we have many people that swear up and down that their engine does not burn a drop of oil

 

[Capa]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
the other thing I found interesting is that the test engine burned more than a quart of oil in 100 hours.

Yet we have many people that swear up and down that their engine does not burn a drop of oil



To the OP, thanks for the informative article.

My 1999 Leus GS400 does a yearly OCI of around 8,000 miles and I do not add any makeup oil. On the other hand, my 2006 Grand Caravan with the 3.8 engine also does a yearly OCI between 8,000-10,000 miles and it definitely consumes oil. Every vehicle is different when it comes to oil consumption.

I'm surprised by the number of people in this thread trying to utilize UOA's as evidence of wear. I thought that it was BITOG 101 that UOA's do not really measure wear.

 

[friendly_jacek]

Originally Posted By: Capa

I'm surprised by the number of people in this thread trying to utilize UOA's as evidence of wear. I thought that it was BITOG 101 that UOA's do not really measure wear.


LOL, I think the popularity of BITOG started with some enthusiasts running UOA and needing a venue to discuss their results.

One needs full particle count from oil AND oil filter to estimate engine wear. How many are doing that?

 

[friendly_jacek]

Originally Posted By: 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.


Great find. I don't think you can generalize that synthetic oils generate less wear. My guess is there must be something specific for Mobile 1 that doesn't show on UOA. There are patents on hydrocracked naphthenic oil as part of synthetic oil blend that result in superior results. Maybe Mobil uses them already in Mobil 1?