Wearcheck Canada recommend to me to get the TAN reading instead of TBN because I use a regular gasoline engine not a diesel.What TAN is going to tell me ?
Thanks
TAN or TBN
- Thread starter Baveux
- Start date
- Status
Hi,
ExxonMobil's Lab here in Australia ( Melbourne ) only reports TAN ( mgKOH/g ) now and has done so for the last couple of years
When the TAN rises to about 80% of the VOA's TBN warning bells sound ( well almost )
TAN ( Total Acid Number ) is the amount ( in milligrams ) of potassium hydroxide required to neutralise all acidic constituents present in 1g of sample
Regards
quote:Did they not give a clue other than that>??? I have always been given the TBN with them. Once and awhile they throw in the TAN or another test because of something.
Originally posted by Baveux: Wearcheck Canada recommend to me to get the TAN reading instead of TBN because I use a regular gasoline engine not a diesel.What TAN is going to tell me ? Thanks
That's what he told me "I have discussed your requirements with a diagnostician and the recommendation is that you opt for a Mob2 kit but request a TAN instead of a TBN in view of the fact that you will be monitoring the oil from gasoline engines"
Any better ?
quote:Clear the first time. Maybe the man had a brain fart... maybe I have one, because I am blank. I know with WearCheck all I do is Circle Gasoline, and they run the TBN automatic. Very rare have I had a TAN. Any special conditions?
Originally posted by Baveux: That's what he told me "I have discussed your requirements with a diagnostician and the recommendation is that you opt for a Mob2 kit but request a TAN instead of a TBN in view of the fact that you will be monitoring the oil from gasoline engines" Any better ?
No special condition. I asked him if I could get away with the MOB 1 analysis and have enough info from this to base my OCI.He replied what it is written above.
I've just read somewhere few minutes ago a site pro TAN. Give me a few minutes and I will try to find it again...
Yeah I got it : http://www.swepcousa.com/lubesite/lubepdf/TG_200305.pdf
[ January 05, 2004, 09:22 PM: Message edited by: Baveux ]
Patman
Staff member
That's very odd, I would think that TBN would be a much more useful thing to know compared to TAN.
I always thought TAN was only really useful for virgin oil samples, not used oil. ![[I dont know]](/forums/graemlins/dunno.gif)
But what they say make sense.
If I understood correctly, TBN is something "man made" and can be subject to dicrepency, while TAN is "engine made" therefore it cannot be misenterpret...
quote:Normal and abnormal wear can be effectively traced by monitoring wear metal levels at each drain. TAN by itself is of limited value in determining oil condition of an engine oil .
Originally posted by Baveux: But what they say make sense. If I understood correctly, TBN is something "man made" and can be subject to dicrepency, while TAN is "engine made" therefore it cannot be misenterpret...
Hi,
Robbie Alexander - I respectfully suggest your comment "(TAN) is of limited value in determining the condition of an engine oil" may be of limited value!
TAN is but one component of determining an OIL's condition. In my experience it is a very good measure of how the oil is surviving it's task - especially in extended drain situations
The wear metals may have very little to do with the OIL's condition - but a lot to do with determining the component's ( engine, gbox etc. ) condition
Regards
quote:By all means, please continue to WALK me through the concept of/with your belief in using TAN with your knowledge of UOA's to better able grasp a real extended drain survival of the said oil. If you have some info, please share. As far as I know, it is limited and the WEAR is what you need to look at. Please advise me how to read the TAN... Please show me how and why it will be different than a TBN. They go hand in hand and as far as my understanding is, the TAN will only move when TBN is getting too low... The TAN I have in my oil is usually 2.0-2.5 VIRGIN depending on which one I use... usually 2.5 the TBN depends upon the oil is over 12, sometimes a little higher. So if you have a formula or something please share. All I know is that WEAR speaks for itself and theres gonna have to be a lot of talking to change my mind on that one.
Originally posted by Doug Hillary: Hi, Robbie Alexander - I respectfully suggest your comment "(TAN) is of limited value in determining the condition of an engine oil" may be of limited value! -*-*-*
Robbie, I'm far from being a specialist but if you follow the link in a post above you will see why they beleive that the TAN is a better measurment of the oil degradation.
I'm a bit disapointed to see that a lot of the "specialist"here aren't participating to this discussion ...
Where is Mr Terry ????
quote:That's okay, I tried it and it would crash my computer every time. Also I started having problems seeing PDF files, they no longer pull up automaticly. My opinions differ in form from the mainstream anyhow. I also rely on the opinion of those I work with and IMO they would include a TAN if it was important. I'n not saying it has no value... But just haw far can a point rise when it is at a 2.5...and if the same rules apply to the TAN as the TBN in giving a possible ERROR, even the more to rule it out IMO. There are oils out there they would I think condemn at this level and mine starts here.. again I'm speaking through my hat on the TAN's, I have no real hands on other than a few times. So if anyone can straighten my thinking I will heed/heel to facts and consider what I find.
Originally posted by Baveux: Robbie, I'm far from being a specialist but if you follow the link in a post above you will see why they beleive that the TAN is a better measurment of the oil degradation. I'm a bit disapointed to see that a lot of the "specialist"here aren't participating to this discussion ... Where is Mr Terry ????
TBN, rather than TAN is the proper metric for engine oil, regardless of the type of fuel used. TAN is a measure of the total amount of acid present in the oil while the TBN indicates the amount of residual acid neutralizing capacity. The values are related, but they are not equivalent or reciprocal. For example, a heavy duty diesel oil with a strong over based detergent additive package can hold a considerable amount of acid (i.e. show a high TAN) but still have an adequate TBN for continued use. The same TAN value for an automotive oil might exceed the buffering capacity of the additive package to the point where the TBN is 0. Once this point is reached, corrosion and sludge formation rapidly accelerate.
TAN is used mostly for gear lubes. The Wearcheck person is confused.
[ January 07, 2004, 05:02 AM: Message edited by: Drstressor ]
Hi,
Robbie Alexander - TAN
UOA's mean many things to many people
For many years we ( I and the Oil Companies and Engine Manufacturers I work with ) have viewed the oil essentially in two parts
a) as a lubricant etc. ( UOA - Oil analysis results )
b) as a "carrier" of wear metals etc. ( UOA - Elemental analysis results )
Under a) above we consider;
Viscosity
Nitration
Water
Soot
TAN is/was classified here
ExxonMobil's Lab here in Australia has reported TBN ( mgKOH/g), TBN ( D4739 ) and TAN (mgKOH/g) on their UOA reports for a number of years
They dropped the TBN reports many months ago - they figure that the TAN result gives a more accurate picture of the oil's rising acidity level and this is particularly relevant when running extended drains on engines covering say 8kkms or operating about 100 hrs per week. So do I
Under b) above, the elemental analysis covers the "usual" items below;
PQ Index
Iron
Aluminium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Silicon
Sodium
Silver
Recently ExxonMobil deleted reporting on Nitration ( under a) above, and at the same time deleted reporting on Silver ( under b) above )
Using various UOAs stored on my in-house database I devised a comparison of TAN/TBN ratios. In the end it became obvious that many factors contributed to the TAN result being easier to "manage" alone
It should also be remembered that UOAs mean different things to different people
For many on here it is more of an "adventure" to learn, to experiment and gain knowledge at very little cost. For example; is GC SLX 0w-30 better than M1 SS 0w-30? Will they ever know? Do they keep their vehicle long enough to matter?
These then are all a part of our collective "adventure" with oils and the TBN and TAN etc. debates are but part of it too
As a fleet owner/manager etc."I write the cheques" - I fool with my money. With engines costing $A40000 and with vehicles covering 240000kms per annum and 1.2mkkms whole of first life, we must take a much more serious approach. Others on here will too I am sure
Firstly, we use the UOA to monitor how a new engine is bedding in. We originally ( 25 years ago ) thought that you would be able to predict the replacement of individual components. If they had additional "traces" inbuilt this would certainly be feasible. Most do not and only by experience with individual engines and their use is this even remotely possible
Secondly, I use the UOA to monitor the oil's condition ( initially to determine the OCI ) - this is the oil's "stress level" and the on going elemental item build up - an insight into the engine's "stress level".
In monitoring the oil's condition, we use the acidic buildup ( TAN ) rate, and we look of course for a meaningful increase/decrease in viscosity. The other items are taken seriously too even though we use Mann-Hummel centrifuge by pass filters for soot removal - we ( Oil Co, Engine Co and I ) have established limits for all of these items. At any sign of significant oil degradation and its investigated and changed regardless of the elemental items status
With the elemental items, we look for "spikes" that may tell us that a camshaft or injector actuator is failing, or that a cam/crank bearing or thrust washer may be wearing excessively etc. They are only "indicators" and we have limits set for all of them. We quickly learned here too that experience plays a very important part!
We now have that experience but with only one engine family - well over 12 years and many millions of kms of it!
We know that the Oil Company knows more about their Oils than the Engine Manufacturer. We know too that the Engine Manufacturer knows more about their Engines than the Oil Company. At the same time commercial considerations and personalities creep in too!
As an end user of both the engine and the oil I also have user experience and exposure that neither supplier has - and an exclusive focus on my assets too. These are based on accurate and unbiased records - and in the end I write the cheques!
As to the oil's condition, oil can deteriorate very rapidly - a failed fuel line or seal, a coolant leak, or a wrong oil top-up is enough. That is the OIL's condition and the elemental items like iron will "most likely" not be affected short term
As to the ENGINE's condition, the elemental items arrive in the carrier at an almost known rate - unless a "spike" alerts you to an issue. This has "little if nothing" to do with the condition of the oil in most cases - in the short term
So for us ( the Oil Company, Engine Manufacturer and I ) the TAN result is a vital but not exclusive part of our "reliability via analysis" programme. And, as mentioned in an earlier post here - it is one of many!
Drstressor - we don't think the WearCheck guy is confused
We collectively consider that the TAN result - what the engine has done to the oil - is more relevant than the TBN result of a used oil - for us at least.
And ExxonMobil do hundreds of UOAs weekly - on their own and others oils - and they carry a huge liability for wrong or incomplete reporting
Regards
Robbie look in your inbasket
drstressor, the guy ??? ![[No no]](/forums/graemlins/nono.gif)
they are two now, the wearcheck guy and the other tech on the site where the link above drive you...and if you add Doug they are 3 !! ![[Smile]](images/icons/smile.gif)
Take a minute to visit the link above
they are two now, the wearcheck guy and the other tech on the site where the link above drive you...and if you add Doug they are 3 !!
Take a minute to visit the link above
Patman
Staff member
quote:Drstressor has much more education in regards to chemistry than these others though. I would trust what he says. Another thing to consider is that if Wearcheck as a whole company thought TAN was more relavent than TBN, then they'd include TAN on their MOB2 reports by default instead of TBN. If you want TAN, you have to pay extra for it, but TBN is included in the MOB2 package. [ January 07, 2004, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: Patman ]
Originally posted by Baveux: drstressor, the guy ???
quote:
Originally posted by Patman: You make a good point Baveux. By the way, your English is perfectly fine, I never would've known it wasn't your first language if you hadn't mentioned it!
![[Roll Eyes]](images/icons/rolleyes.gif){kind=icon}
Yeah right !!! Thanks anyway ![[Happy]](/forums/graemlins/fruit.gif)
Mr. Terry agrees with Dr Stressor.
Although I like to have both to read and compare to VOA levels, economics, ensure I must decide on only one for our basic automotive engine kit, gas or diesel.
The purpose of a lubricant in an internal combustion engine is not to remain at a certain acidic level but be able to neutralize the production of same and TBN gives me a better guide of that than TAN. TAN in diesel or gasoline formulated oils will remain relatively stable over a given drain interval. TBN as we have all observed here does not. Or you could think of it this way; I want to shoot the enemy that is closest to me first ,to use a poor analogy.
Dougs fleet justifies the need for more in depth analysis. Or he is getting really poor fuels to deal with.
Hey I'm an analysis guy not a MENSA Ph.d
[ January 07, 2004, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: Terry ]
[ January 07, 2004, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: Terry ]- Status
Similar threads
