Synthetic Nostalgia - Zenex
- Thread starter Tom NJ
- Start date
- Status
Quote:
.I also believe it was a woman if memory suits me right.
Shirley Green was the lady. She became a big dealer and still is.
fyi
1976 Popular Science
.I also believe it was a woman if memory suits me right.
Shirley Green was the lady. She became a big dealer and still is.
fyi
1976 Popular Science
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: lexus114
Hatco? that sounds like a fly by night outfit.
You are joking, right?
No kidding! Fly by night! Nothing could be further from the truth...
Hatco Corporation
CompSyn
Originally Posted By: lexus114
Hatco? that sounds like a fly by night outfit.
You are joking, right?
No kidding! Fly by night! Nothing could be further from the truth...
Hatco Corporation
CompSyn
I miss the fact that you could put 2 holes in the metal can lid, keep one finger over one hole as the can nears the oil fill, then let go. Never had to use a funnel until the plastiq bottles came out
Steve
Steve
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
The UOA data after 25,000 no-drain hard-driven hot & dusty police miles was excellent. Had they stopped there, the test would have been a smashing success. Instead, they decided to go for 50,000 OCIs, and began losing engines in the 40,000+ mile range. In essence, not knowing how long it would go they ran it to failure, and hence the headlines were "Synthetic oil fails"! Real shame.
The mode of engine failure was excessive wear, but what wasn't reported was that it was caused by dirt, not the oil. The oil filters were only changed once at 25,000 miles and the silicon results were through the roof. I personally reviewed the UOA data and plotted iron against silicon - drew a beautiful straight 45 degree line.
It was a set back for synthetics. If you run a test to failure, the results will be failure. Took a while to climb out of that hole.
Tom NJ
Just kind of goes to show that the technology was way behind it’s time. Imagine using the 1973 Eon E-11 synthetic with modern engine and filtration technology? 50,000-miles probably could have easily been attained with that combination. It wasn’t the oil that failed it was all the dirt that infiltrated.
Fast forward 35-years and the 3,000-mile oil change myth lives on…
CompSyn
The UOA data after 25,000 no-drain hard-driven hot & dusty police miles was excellent. Had they stopped there, the test would have been a smashing success. Instead, they decided to go for 50,000 OCIs, and began losing engines in the 40,000+ mile range. In essence, not knowing how long it would go they ran it to failure, and hence the headlines were "Synthetic oil fails"! Real shame.
The mode of engine failure was excessive wear, but what wasn't reported was that it was caused by dirt, not the oil. The oil filters were only changed once at 25,000 miles and the silicon results were through the roof. I personally reviewed the UOA data and plotted iron against silicon - drew a beautiful straight 45 degree line.
It was a set back for synthetics. If you run a test to failure, the results will be failure. Took a while to climb out of that hole.
Tom NJ
Just kind of goes to show that the technology was way behind it’s time. Imagine using the 1973 Eon E-11 synthetic with modern engine and filtration technology? 50,000-miles probably could have easily been attained with that combination. It wasn’t the oil that failed it was all the dirt that infiltrated.
Fast forward 35-years and the 3,000-mile oil change myth lives on…
CompSyn
I printed out a copy of that article when it was posted here - don't know if it still is, but I 'think' so....its a really, really neat 'perspective' article for modern times....
That article was done in 1976; and I don't know if it mentions the Eon police test - the DO mention a test of M1 5W-20 in police cars in the south, and say that after a while, they 'just stopped draining the oil', and after 50,000 miles the engines were still running....
That article was done in 1976; and I don't know if it mentions the Eon police test - the DO mention a test of M1 5W-20 in police cars in the south, and say that after a while, they 'just stopped draining the oil', and after 50,000 miles the engines were still running....
Want to see something 'weird'? the name Zenex is STILL used on a lubricating oil, but its for locomotives:
Zenex LML Zenex LML is a high quality multigrade SAE 20W-40, ‘Fourth Generation’ diesel engine crankcase oil for use in railroad engines fitted with silver bearings that require the use of a zinc-free lubricant. It has proven fuel saving characteristics under local conditions and sustained high alkalinity providing excellent corrosion protection with high sulphur fuels. It has dispersancy qualities which will extend oil and filter life and maintain engine cleanliness. Zenex LML exceeds API-CD quality requirements
From:
http://www.silversolutions435.co.za/Engen_IL.html
Zenex LML Zenex LML is a high quality multigrade SAE 20W-40, ‘Fourth Generation’ diesel engine crankcase oil for use in railroad engines fitted with silver bearings that require the use of a zinc-free lubricant. It has proven fuel saving characteristics under local conditions and sustained high alkalinity providing excellent corrosion protection with high sulphur fuels. It has dispersancy qualities which will extend oil and filter life and maintain engine cleanliness. Zenex LML exceeds API-CD quality requirements
From:
http://www.silversolutions435.co.za/Engen_IL.html
Tom,
I’d be interested to know what the TBN was of these early extended drain synthetic motor oils.
Zenex: TBN?
Eon: TBN?
Amsoil/Hatcol 2250: TBN?
Thanks,
CompSyn
I’d be interested to know what the TBN was of these early extended drain synthetic motor oils.
Zenex: TBN?
Eon: TBN?
Amsoil/Hatcol 2250: TBN?
Thanks,
CompSyn
Originally Posted By: yannis
If there was a share stable 10W40 back in the 70's capable for 25.000 miles then somothing is wrong with the oil industry today.
Keep in mind, these were synthetics. Modern synthetic 10W-40's are still just as shear-stable. Some of the synthetic 30-weights MAY be formulated to shear a bit for fuel economy concers, but any 10W-40 syn oil is going to be VERY stout (RL recommends using their 10W-40 in places that would normally recommend 20W-50, so that should give and indication of how tought this oil is).
If there was a share stable 10W40 back in the 70's capable for 25.000 miles then somothing is wrong with the oil industry today.
Keep in mind, these were synthetics. Modern synthetic 10W-40's are still just as shear-stable. Some of the synthetic 30-weights MAY be formulated to shear a bit for fuel economy concers, but any 10W-40 syn oil is going to be VERY stout (RL recommends using their 10W-40 in places that would normally recommend 20W-50, so that should give and indication of how tought this oil is).
As well as TBN, as CompSyn asked, I've love to know what sort of additive levels these 1970's synthetics used - I've read that some of the 'shadier' syn oil formulator/sellers back then would just sell synthetic basestocks w/o ANY additives as 'fully formulated synthetic oil!
While I used to personally run the TBNs when I worked in the QC lab back then, I don't recall at all what the values were. Besides, we used a different method back then (ASTM D-664). There must be some old data sheets still hanging around out there with TBN, TAN, and metals, but I don't have any. When I retired last year I took nothing.
The VI improvers used were very shear stable, and considerably more expensive than the more common grades. The 0% viscosity increase in a double Seq III test on one formulation was more a function of oxidative stability than shear stability as the anti-oxidant level was significantly boosted with supplemental AOs.
Regarding DI additive treatment levels, I believe they were generally higher than the conventional oils back then, and also more expensive. I did not find any competitive synthetics with low or no additives, and we looked at all we could get.
We always formulated for optimum performance, not cost. These all ester formulations were so much more costly than conventional mineral oils that counting pennies was meaningless.
Tom NJ
The VI improvers used were very shear stable, and considerably more expensive than the more common grades. The 0% viscosity increase in a double Seq III test on one formulation was more a function of oxidative stability than shear stability as the anti-oxidant level was significantly boosted with supplemental AOs.
Regarding DI additive treatment levels, I believe they were generally higher than the conventional oils back then, and also more expensive. I did not find any competitive synthetics with low or no additives, and we looked at all we could get.
We always formulated for optimum performance, not cost. These all ester formulations were so much more costly than conventional mineral oils that counting pennies was meaningless.
Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
While I used to personally run the TBNs when I worked in the QC lab back then, I don't recall at all what the values were. Besides, we used a different method back then (ASTM D-664). There must be some old data sheets still hanging around out there with TBN, TAN, and metals, but I don't have any. When I retired last year I took nothing.
The VI improvers used were very shear stable, and considerably more expensive than the more common grades. The 0% viscosity increase in a double Seq III test on one formulation was more a function of oxidative stability than shear stability as the anti-oxidant level was significantly boosted with supplemental AOs.
Regarding DI additive treatment levels, I believe they were generally higher than the conventional oils back then, and also more expensive. I did not find any competitive synthetics with low or no additives, and we looked at all we could get.
We always formulated for optimum performance, not cost. These all ester formulations were so much more costly than conventional mineral oils that counting pennies was meaningless.
Tom NJ
That very last line sounds very much like the way Amsoil STILL operates, and defends their prices. Good to see company stick to quality, above all else!
While I used to personally run the TBNs when I worked in the QC lab back then, I don't recall at all what the values were. Besides, we used a different method back then (ASTM D-664). There must be some old data sheets still hanging around out there with TBN, TAN, and metals, but I don't have any. When I retired last year I took nothing.
The VI improvers used were very shear stable, and considerably more expensive than the more common grades. The 0% viscosity increase in a double Seq III test on one formulation was more a function of oxidative stability than shear stability as the anti-oxidant level was significantly boosted with supplemental AOs.
Regarding DI additive treatment levels, I believe they were generally higher than the conventional oils back then, and also more expensive. I did not find any competitive synthetics with low or no additives, and we looked at all we could get.
We always formulated for optimum performance, not cost. These all ester formulations were so much more costly than conventional mineral oils that counting pennies was meaningless.
Tom NJ
That very last line sounds very much like the way Amsoil STILL operates, and defends their prices. Good to see company stick to quality, above all else!
Originally Posted By: addyguy
That very last line sounds very much like the way Amsoil STILL operates, and defends their prices. Good to see company stick to quality, above all else!
Just to be clear, in case any readers misinterpret, I never worked for Amsoil.
In fact I don't work at all anymore
Retirement is a kick!
Tom NJ
That very last line sounds very much like the way Amsoil STILL operates, and defends their prices. Good to see company stick to quality, above all else!
Just to be clear, in case any readers misinterpret, I never worked for Amsoil.
In fact I don't work at all anymore
Tom NJ
I started driving in the '70s, and taking care of my car, including oil changes. Odd that I don't recall seeing this oil -- maybe they never sold it in S. Loozyana, or maybe they just didn't sell it in K-Mart or Sears?
I remember Mobil 1 and its early advertising ("If you already have a car that uses oil, it will use Mobil 1 faster because it's thinner"). And STP had an oil they touted as a 15,000-mile oil. I don't recall Zenex.
I remember Mobil 1 and its early advertising ("If you already have a car that uses oil, it will use Mobil 1 faster because it's thinner"). And STP had an oil they touted as a 15,000-mile oil. I don't recall Zenex.
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
The mode of engine failure was excessive wear, but what wasn't reported was that it was caused by dirt, not the oil. The oil filters were only changed once at 25,000 miles and the silicon results were through the roof.
I don't understand the relationship between silicon and the oil filter change intervals. Were the filter elements clogged and operating chiefly in bypass for much of the 25,000 mile and 15,000 mile intervals?
The mode of engine failure was excessive wear, but what wasn't reported was that it was caused by dirt, not the oil. The oil filters were only changed once at 25,000 miles and the silicon results were through the roof.
I don't understand the relationship between silicon and the oil filter change intervals. Were the filter elements clogged and operating chiefly in bypass for much of the 25,000 mile and 15,000 mile intervals?
Tom, offhand do you know if most synthetics of this time period were majority ester based?
I know someone that ran the early ester based Amsoil synthetics and said they kept the engine exceptionally clean.
It's interesting too that only 2 well known brands are still using majority ester base oils in their products. Redline and Motul (some grades). Cost being the issue.
I know someone that ran the early ester based Amsoil synthetics and said they kept the engine exceptionally clean.
It's interesting too that only 2 well known brands are still using majority ester base oils in their products. Redline and Motul (some grades). Cost being the issue.
- Status
