Wear and fuel economy results for selected SF through SN oils: PCMO3 engine test

[Gokhan]

Tribology Testing Labs developed an engine test called PCMO3 in 2015, which is used to predict fuel economy & engine durability. http://www.tribologytesting.com/PCMO3-vs-Seq6E-vs-D7589-Jan2015.pdf They claim: For determining friction and wear characteristics: • Gasoline & Diesel Motor Oils • Relevant to All Engine Manufacturers and Models • New Additives, Engine Materials, Coatings & Surface Finishes • Idling, City & Highway Driving Sequences • From Idling to 3000 RPM's • Sorts by Viscosity Grade & Friction Modifier % • Best Precision, Repeatability & Reliability in the Business However, little detail is available about their actual test, which seems to measure fuel consumption and valvetrain wear on a test engine. They tested several oils going back to SF, SJ, SL, and SM days as well as modern SN and dexos1 oils. Some of the key conclusions: * Despite the drastic reduction of ZDDP starting with API SL (1000 ppm P max) and then further with SM and SN (800 ppm P max), wear in general decreased with every newer API category. So, you don't need high ZDDP to reduce wear. * Fuel economy of the newer categories is also much better. * Perhaps, the most interesting conclusion is that the organic friction modifiers make a day-and-night difference in wear and fuel economy. The authors are blaming the industry for not incorporating this technology for many years and still counting. * Used oil shows less wear than new oil (for the valvetrain), as it was discussed in other threads. However, the fuel economy of used oil is worse. * Surprisingly, 0W-20 and 5W-20 has less wear than 5W-30 and 10W-30. This is probably because these oils are made with better additive packages and better base oils. Here are the results. Note that the coefficient of friction and fuel economy are the same thing, related by a constant factor. It's interesting to look at oils from API SF days, when ZDDP was the king. Sorted by wear, from least wear (smallest number) to most wear (largest number):

Code

Frict. Fuel ec. Wear    Oil

0.218	3952	6.1	5W-20 SN used oil (9539 mi, Ford Fiesta)
0.120	2169	6.3	Reference oil 0W-20
0.101	1834	6.5	M1 5W-30 + 1.5% FM                                 
0.171	3102	6.9	5W-30 SN dexos1 used oil (7500 mi, Chevy Avalanche)
0.204	3693	7.0	Valvoline 10W-30 SN 2015                                 
0.168	3047	7.0	GM 5W-30 SN 2015                                 
0.196	3540	7.0	5W-20 SN new oil
0.210	3805	7.1	Mobil Super 5000 5W-30 SN 2015
0.108	1943	7.2	M1 5W-30 + 0.75% FM                                 
0.218	3939	7.2	Quaker State 10W-30 SN 2015
0.196	3557	7.3	SAE 30 SN                         
0.171	3092	7.4	Mobil Drive Clean 5W-30 SL 2004
0.176	2185	7.5	Mobil Clean 5000 5W-30 SM 2010
0.183	3309	7.6	Reference oil 20W-30
0.125	2274	7.6	M1 5W-30 + 0.5% FM                                 
0.228	4124	7.6	Valvoline 10W-30 SF 1988                                 
0.172	3110	7.7	Reference oil 10W-30
0.178	3989	7.9	GM 5W-30 SL 2001                                 
0.137	2478	8.1	M1 5W-30 + 0.25% FM                                 
0.150	2723	8.3	M1 5W-30 SN 2015                                 
0.150	2723	8.3	5W-30 SN dexos1 new oil
0.189	3434	8.8	GM 5W-30 SJ 1996                                 
0.219	3973	8.8	Quaker State 10W-30 SJ 1996
0.187	3393	8.9	GM 5W-30 syn blend SN dexos1 2015

Sorted by fuel economy/coefficient of friction, from highest fuel economy (smallest number) to lowest fuel economy (largest number):

Code

Frict. Fuel ec. Wear    Oil

0.101	1834	6.5	M1 5W-30 + 1.5% FM                                 
0.108	1943	7.2	M1 5W-30 + 0.75% FM                                 
0.120	2169	6.3	Reference oil 0W-20
0.176	2185	7.5	Mobil Clean 5000 5W-30 SM 2010
0.125	2274	7.6	M1 5W-30 + 0.5% FM                                 
0.137	2478	8.1	M1 5W-30 + 0.25% FM                                 
0.150	2723	8.3	M1 5W-30 SN 2015                                 
0.150	2723	8.3	5W-30 SN dexos1 new oil
0.168	3047	7.0	GM 5W-30 SN 2015                                 
0.171	3092	7.4	Mobil Drive Clean 5W-30 SL 2004
0.171	3102	6.9	5W-30 SN dexos1 used oil (7500 mi, Chevy Avalanche)
0.172	3110	7.7	Reference oil 10W-30
0.183	3309	7.6	Reference oil 20W-30
0.187	3393	8.9	GM 5W-30 syn blend SN dexos1 2015
0.189	3434	8.8	GM 5W-30 SJ 1996                                 
0.196	3540	7.0	5W-20 SN new oil
0.196	3557	7.3	SAE 30 SN                         
0.204	3693	7.0	Valvoline 10W-30 SN 2015                                 
0.210	3805	7.1	Mobil Super 5000 5W-30 SN 2015
0.218	3939	7.2	Quaker State 10W-30 SN 2015
0.218	3952	6.1	5W-20 SN used oil (9539 mi, Ford Fiesta)
0.219	3973	8.8	Quaker State 10W-30 SJ 1996
0.178	3989	7.9	GM 5W-30 SL 2001                                 
0.228	4124	7.6	Valvoline 10W-30 SF 1988

 

[OilUzer]

What kind of engines and loads and how many were tested?

 

[SonofJoe]

(edit) mod

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by Gokhan

* Used oil shows less wear than new oil (for the valvetrain), as it was discussed in other threads. ]

That's NOT what that paper states...As I've stated over and over and over again...it forms a tribofilm way faster on new metal surfaces than new does. The only way that paper would describe lower valvetrain wear was if all new cars were fitted with knackered 15,000 mile oil at the factory...I've started a few threads on that over the years PLUS offered "pre-conditioned oil" at quite reasonable prices from my "Sasha Gray" bucket.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted by Shannow

Originally Posted by Gokhan

* Used oil shows less wear than new oil (for the valvetrain), as it was discussed in other threads. ]

That's NOT what that paper states...As I've stated over and over and over again...it forms a tribofilm way faster on new metal surfaces than new does. The only way that paper would describe lower valvetrain wear was if all new cars were fitted with knackered 15,000 mile oil at the factory...I've started a few threads on that over the years PLUS offered "pre-conditioned oil" at quite reasonable prices from my "Sasha Gray" bucket.

In the PCMO3 engine tests, used oil showed less wear but more friction than new oil. It may have to do with the fact that part of the ZDDP is already decomposed and works faster, as ZDDP doesn't start forming a tribofilm before it decomposes.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by Gokhan

Tribology Testing Labs developed an engine test called PCMO3 in 2015, which is used to predict fuel economy & engine durability. http://www.tribologytesting.com/PCMO3-vs-Seq6E-vs-D7589-Jan2015.pdf They claim: For determining friction and wear characteristics: • Gasoline & Diesel Motor Oils • Relevant to All Engine Manufacturers and Models • New Additives, Engine Materials, Coatings & Surface Finishes • Idling, City & Highway Driving Sequences • From Idling to 3000 RPM's • Sorts by Viscosity Grade & Friction Modifier % • Best Precision, Repeatability & Reliability in the Business However, little detail is available about their actual test, which seems to measure fuel consumption and valvetrain wear on a test engine.

You've used your usual "out" with the word "seems".... But they use the "engine simulation" phrase far to frequently to make me think that it has everything to do with anything BUT a running engine. Looking at the traces, the shape of the curves resembles some sort of reciprocating test rig, crank driven (different dwell times TDC and BDC), or cam arrangement, and the COF is an average of the area under the curve over time. Laughably, the economy index is simply a multiplier of the friction number (bar two typos in the presentation)

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by Gokhan

In the PCMO3 engine simulation tests, used oil showed less wear but more friction than new oil.

Fixed that for you...there's ZERO evidence for it being an engine test, and it's pretty clear that it's not.

Originally Posted by Gokhan

It may have to do with the fact that part of the ZDDP is already decomposed and works faster, as ZDDP doesn't start forming a tribofilm before it decomposes.

Been yelling that here for over a decade...good to see it's catching.

 

[Gokhan]

Again, I don't know if it's an actual engine test. However, they do show the picture of a laboratory engine. They also say: • New Additives, Engine Materials, Coatings & Surface Finishes • Idling, City & Highway Driving Sequences • From Idling to 3000 RPM's

Originally Posted by Shannow

Been yelling that here for over a decade...good to see it's catching.

Lol. No. I never caught you saying that. I have a whole long thread on almost anything you want know about ZDDP and moly if not more: https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4853520/all/primary-vs-secondary-zddp

 

[alarmguy]

Its interesting to note a fact that most seem blind too and that is conventional oil had better wear numbers then many synthetics and right at the top of the charts. This once again confirms it. I know most know it, this is just for the benefit of others.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by Gokhan

Again, I don't know if it's an actual engine test. However, they do show the picture of a laboratory engine. They also say: • New Additives, Engine Materials, Coatings & Surface Finishes • Idling, City & Highway Driving Sequences • From Idling to 3000 RPM's

Originally Posted by Shannow

Been yelling that here for over a decade...good to see it's catching.

Lol. No. I never caught you saying that. I have a whole long thread on almost anything you want know about ZDDP and moly if not more: https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4853520/all/primary-vs-secondary-zddp

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4096319/New_oil_change_regime_-_half_c Plus lots of stuff on Mo breaking down to MoS2 as being the anti-wear component in the Zn phosphate glass layers back when my "far fetched" friends were baiting me in 2014 while lying on a beach in Hawaii...

 

[OilUzer]

Nobody knows if it's an actual engine test and little detail is available about their actual test and it may be simulation ... Sounds like a fun college project! why is anyone reading the paper unless they have a near perfect model & simulation? Are they a very credible source otherwise?

 

[Gokhan]

Shannow is probably right that it's not an actual engine test. It would otherwise be too good to be true. I emailed the guy but no response. College project, OilUzer? No. Here are their clients: http://www.tribologytesting.com/ttl-2014_006.htm

Originally Posted by Shannow

... when my "far fetched" friends were baiting me in 2014 while lying on a beach in Hawaii...

You were on BITOG while on vacation?

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by Gokhan

You were on BITOG while on vacation?

Of course...what's a vacation without being among friends and sharing ?

 

[Cujet]

7030 East Rd, Saginaw, Michigan 48601 A google earth search shows small business nestled in a rural neighborhood, with a small "Adams" oval sign on the front. Having worked for Mobil Oil and visited one of their testing labs, this looks like a very "small fry". I certainly don't see any room for chassis or engine dyno testing facilities. I'm guessing they have some form of testing rig. I'm not one to discount lab tests. However, I'm more interested in real world results. A post above talks about how dino oil exhibits lower wear numbers. Yet, real world problems exist with conventional oils that can lead to real world engine problems. Same goes for running an engine ad infinitum with contaminated oil of any type, as the results are clear.

 

[weasley]

All of the other data they show on their website uses the SRV, which is a benchtop reciprocating friction/wear apparatus.

 

[Cujet]

Originally Posted by weasley

All of the other data they show on their website uses the SRV, which is a benchtop reciprocating friction/wear apparatus.

I saw that too. Useful for testing to see if a product meets specs for wear scar rating. I've sent fuels out for HFRR testing and always trust the results. However, a fuel is not called upon to lubricate a highly loaded engine. It's a fact that benchtop testing machines are utterly unable to duplicate an oil's performance in an engine in real world use. We have 120 years of operational experience now. Yet we still have oil and wear related issues with regularity. Kia/Hyundai, Honda, Toyota, GM, Ford and others have well known issues. The claims made, do not translate to longer engine life, period. Furthermore, even if they have a laboratory engine, without environmental chambers, a research dyno and a scanning electron microscope to perform physical wear measurement, they are simply wasting time.

 

[StevieC]

 

[buster]

Bench top testing is very limited and has often been used by small boutique blenders for marketing purposes. This is off of XOM's website: "At the ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company (EMRE), our technical center and blend plant in New Jersey, scientists and engineers use a wealth of experience and resources to carefully select and combine components to maximize synthetic oil's capabilities. Our technical experts are able to achieve a fully balanced formulation that ensures outstanding engine protection and performance. Taking oil for a test drive About 500 formulations are blended each month at the technical center in New Jersey. Our flagship products consists of about 15 to 20 hand selected components, which consist of synthetic base stocks and performance additives that address the demanding operating environments of today's machines. Real-world testing begins at the EMRE technical center, where candidate formulations are put through extreme tests in rigs, engines and vehicles which simulate high-speed, high-load and high-temperature environments. After testing, engines are disassembled and digital microscopes are used to inspect part surfaces for wear. In another area of the center, vehicles of every make and model are strapped to dynamometers to test oil blends, sometimes against competitive brands. Cycles can be custom-programmed to generate data for high speeds, stop-and-go traffic, long durations, or any combination of driving conditions. Production equipment at the plant can blend up to 300 gallons per minute and dispense Mobil oil into anything ranging from plastic quart bottles to tank railcars. From New Jersey, the oil carries more than 40 years of research and development to consumers, shops and race teams around the world, delivering an advanced formula that's proven to keep engines running like new."

 

[1JZ_E46]

Gokhan, you list the PCMO3 test results and your opinions interchangeably. This is people's biggest gripe with you. You make sweeping inferences and opinions (and I've seen them flip flop) and try to present them as though they are conclusions from whatever paper you are presenting.

 

[badduxx]

Originally Posted by Cujet

7030 East Rd, Saginaw, Michigan 48601 A google earth search shows small business nestled in a rural neighborhood, with a small "Adams" oval sign on the front. Having worked for Mobil Oil and visited one of their testing labs, this looks like a very "small fry". I certainly don't see any room for chassis or engine dyno testing facilities. I'm guessing they have some form of testing rig. I'm not one to discount lab tests. However, I'm more interested in real world results. A post above talks about how dino oil exhibits lower wear numbers. Yet, real world problems exist with conventional oils that can lead to real world engine problems. Same goes for running an engine ad infinitum with contaminated oil of any type, as the results are clear.

I bet all the action takes place underground within the engine simulation mission control. The above-grade building is just cover in plain sight. Notice the oil drill or whatever on the sign.