The Performance Improvement Additive package

[Shannow]

SoJ,
on that meme, if I looked at the shelf of oils at my local Supercheap Auto, just a rough guess, but what percentage do you think have genuinely been tested against all the requirements ?

Lots would be certificated by the additive suppliers I guess, but within a range/line is it likely that only one has had the full suite done on it, then expanded upon using the slate to the others ?

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: bigj_16
Shannow,
What do think about this(from the Infineum article)
"The IQT tests highlighted that the propensity for auto-ignition increased from Group I to Group IV. We also noted that some Group V formulations are very resistant to auto-ignition (no auto-ignition promotion effect compared to pure fuel), which may be interesting for LSPI-resistant formulations."


I'm really not up to speed with the LSPI stuff, other than novelty factor (serious issue, but I'm moving all diesel)

 

[SR5]

Shannow,
That question of "has this particular oil been actually tested" is something I too have pondered.

It was Kendall that got me thinking that way. They produce a nice selection of ISLAC PCMO's, semi-synthetic and full synthetic (Grp III) with a signature Titanium add (100 ppm). They were SN and GF-5, but no Dexos1 oil for awhile, when the finally got a Dexos oil it seemed a different add pack to the rest with no Ti in it.

I could never find any Dexos rules explicitly forbidding Ti, and Kendall always claimed it to be the ducks-nuts, so I just assumed it was too expensive to test their own add pack, and they just purchased an off the shelf Dexos rate add pack. No proof, just my feeling it was easier to purchase rather than develop.

 

[SonofJoe]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
SoJ,
on that meme, if I looked at the shelf of oils at my local Supercheap Auto, just a rough guess, but what percentage do you think have genuinely been tested against all the requirements ?

Lots would be certificated by the additive suppliers I guess, but within a range/line is it likely that only one has had the full suite done on it, then expanded upon using the slate to the others ?



It's a really difficult question to answer.

If you see something labelled as API SJ or above, then in theory, there SHOULD be a full data set to support the claim. The data set may not be what you might expect. If say you buy a 20W50 SJ/CF oil, you might find the wear test was run as a 10W30, the oxidation test as a 15W40 and the sludge test as a 20W40 but all of these tests 'read' to the 20W50 position. The thing is, the 20W50 you're actually buying, may not have seen the inside of an engine ever!! The API CF may or may not be supported by a Cat 1MPC test. The category is now obsolete and the 1MPC is long dead so there's no absolute requirement to do anything.

Anything below API SH is a bit of a lottery. Different companies approach this area quite differently. I like to think I was always an 'honest' formulator, so would run some form of realistic testing to back up claims. Others might apply a field trial approach to fit-for-purpose vs API SG (or whatever). Others might just pluck numbers that fit out of thin air.

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted By: SR5
Shannow,
That question of "has this particular oil been actually tested" is something I too have pondered.

It was Kendall that got me thinking that way. They produce a nice selection of ISLAC PCMO's, semi-synthetic and full synthetic (Grp III) with a signature Titanium add (100 ppm). They were SN and GF-5, but no Dexos1 oil for awhile, when the finally got a Dexos oil it seemed a different add pack to the rest with no Ti in it.

I could never find any Dexos rules explicitly forbidding Ti, and Kendall always claimed it to be the ducks-nuts, so I just assumed it was too expensive to test their own add pack, and they just purchased an off the shelf Dexos rate add pack. No proof, just my feeling it was easier to purchase rather than develop.




I wonder if Castrol has reformulated their Edge products yet? They also contain titanium although it's a much lower level than the 100ppm that Kendall had.

 

[SR5]

Joe, Since we are talking adds packs and things like wear tests, oxidation tests, sludge tests, deposit tests, etc.

What are the major tests that must be passed, the non-trivial ones, and which parts of the add packs are most critical to which tests ?

I know the old Castrol GTX (Grp II) claimed to exceed API SN Seq. VG sludge protection test requirements by 25%. Then the new semi-synthetic GTX UltraClean came along and bettered the same test by 50%. Would you guess that this improvement is solely due to the addition of Grp III, or would the add pack need to be improved as well ?




BTW I hope you are having a relaxing Sunday morning. I've been doing plumbing for much of my Sunday, and I'm a nervous plumber, I get the theory but it's the silly mistake followed by rapid flooding the phases me.

 

[SR5]

Originally Posted By: PimTac
Originally Posted By: SR5
Shannow,
That question of "has this particular oil been actually tested" is something I too have pondered.

It was Kendall that got me thinking that way. They produce a nice selection of ISLAC PCMO's, semi-synthetic and full synthetic (Grp III) with a signature Titanium add (100 ppm). They were SN and GF-5, but no Dexos1 oil for awhile, when the finally got a Dexos oil it seemed a different add pack to the rest with no Ti in it.

I could never find any Dexos rules explicitly forbidding Ti, and Kendall always claimed it to be the ducks-nuts, so I just assumed it was too expensive to test their own add pack, and they just purchased an off the shelf Dexos rate add pack. No proof, just my feeling it was easier to purchase rather than develop.


I wonder if Castrol has reformulated their Edge products yet? They also contain titanium although it's a much lower level than the 100ppm that Kendall had.


According to the spec sheet most Kendall oils have 100 ppm TI excerpt the Dexos that has none.

For Castrol Edge, looking at a few VOA's here and on PQIA, for the ILSAC grades the Ti is very minor, maybe 5 to 10 ppm. For the euro Edge grades like 0W40 they test out to about 40 to 50 ppm Titanium.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4089446/

http://www.pqiadata.org/CastrolEdge5W20dexos1.html

The above two VOA's are both from 2016.

 

[KL31]

Originally Posted By: SR5
Similarly we have two Castrol full synthetic (Grp IiI) 5W30 oils at the thick end of the grade.
- Edge 5W30 that is SL (due to high Zinc / Phos , stated by Castrol) A3/B4, MB 229.5, BMW LL-01
- Magnatec 5W30 that is SN and A3/B4 but no Euro OEMs.
Would these two be almost the same oil with just a ZDDP booster pack separating the two ?

Even is my "lesser" oil ( Magnatec in this case) passed a few Euro OEMs I might not put this on the bottle so as to keep the Euro car drivers focused on the more expensive Edge product.

My general feeling is that even with good name brand products, not every oil is hand crafted to be "just-so", but rather one oil is nudged a little this way or that way to make a few different oils for various market requirements.


Sound theory, SR5! I was sort of thinking the same when they bought out all those Edge and Magnatec products after they already had the cream of the crop 5W30 A3/B4.

Edge 10W30 A5/B5, Magnatec Fuel saver 5W30 GF5, Magnatec Stop Start 5W30 A3/B4, Magnatec 10W30 stop start A3/B4. Five oils in total with slight variations. They all end up similar prices when on a good sale too (around $35)

 

[SonofJoe]

Originally Posted By: SR5
Joe, Since we are talking adds packs and things like wear tests, oxidation tests, sludge tests, deposit tests, etc.

What are the major tests that must be passed, the non-trivial ones, and which parts of the add packs are most critical to which tests ?

I know the old Castrol GTX (Grp II) claimed to exceed API SN Seq. VG sludge protection test requirements by 25%. Then the new semi-synthetic GTX UltraClean came along and bettered the same test by 50%. Would you guess that this improvement is solely due to the addition of Grp III, or would the add pack need to be improved as well ?




BTW I hope you are having a relaxing Sunday morning. I've been doing plumbing for much of my Sunday, and I'm a nervous plumber, I get the theory but it's the silly mistake followed by rapid flooding the phases me.



You're asking some big questions there and they're not easy to answer. In my experience, engine oil testing is a lot like Alice Through The Looking Glass where nothing is quite what it seems.

Okay, the short, succinct answer...

The Number One thing to sort out with any oil is oxidation. So many things kick in only once you've lost control of oxidation (sludge, bearing corrosion, deposits, etc) that you have to get this right. The two main engine tests for oil oxidation in GF-5 are the IIIG and the VG. Things that directly impact on oil oxidation are base oil type, ZDDP, Moly, Detergent TBN & Antioxidants (hindered phenols, phenylenediamines, etc). Fuel quality has an indirect impact on engine oil oxidation but in 2017 this is very much overblown. IMO, in the civilised world, there is no such thing as 'bad' fuel. Noack also can have an impact on oil oxidation tests (light base oil stripped from the crankcase by hot blow-by and re-evaporating fuel, routed through the PCV system, get burnt, end up in the oil & do nasty things).

Wear is the second most important thing to test. For GF-5, you directly assess this on the IVA & IIIG test and sort of indirectly assess it on the VG (wear metals in oil act as oxidation catalysts which increase the likelyhood of sludge). Viscosity, ZDDP & Moly tend to have the most direct impact on wear. IMO, Boron (in its most likely form) DOESN'T impact on wear. High VI base oils don't seem to have much of an advantage on wear in the same way they do for oxidation. Esters can impact on wear but in both good & bad ways.

In 2017, with Group I oils fast receding from the scene, both oil oxidation and traditional wear are all but beat for normal OCIs. I personally wouldn't put too much weight on claims which state 'our oil beat test X by Y percent'. The truth is that ALL valid passing tests beat the spec by some measure of percentage points. These industry tests are generally assessed on several parameters, not just one, and it's just not possible to formulate an oil which marginally passes on all parameters.

Hope this helps...

 

[SR5]

Thanks Joe, very interesting.

 

[oil_film_movies]

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
I think there's a lot wrong with the way oils have evolved to be 'approved'. The system concentrates far too much power in the hands of the OEMs, oil companies and AddCos to the detriment of the general motoring public.
Having OEMs have a huge say in what oils people buy is fine by me. We've seen the oil specs get tougher and tougher, so the trend is good. Variety of oil specs is not a problem either, with ACEA, dexos, ILSAC, all popular. And who can fault the Euro-specs (A40, 229.5, etc.) that elevate the performance level of oil?
I guess you're lamenting concentration of production, yet there are still 4 big additive companies in the U.S., and probably at least 2 more around the rest of the planet I haven't heard of. That seems like plenty. I'm having a hard time being upset by the available products out there now.

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
The usual rule is if you're big enough, you can have anything you like booster-wise. However if you're a small company, then the options list is more restrictive.

Because of additive interactions, surface competition, etc., I'm not sure you can just add 'boosters' and still be sure it passes all the engine tests like deposits, wear, foaming, you know. Only 1 formulation passed the SN and/or dexos1 (whatever) tests, and when you change it then you no longer know it will pass everything.