What is now considered the holy grail of dino?

[donnyj08]

Originally Posted by LeoStrop
Originally Posted by Gokhan

What's the king of Group II then? It is conventional HDEO. Group II doesn't get any better than in a conventional HDEO in terms of the base-oil quality as well as the additive package. If you are OK with the viscosity in your climate, you can't find a better Group II oil than a conventional HDEO.

X2

For PCMO I think VWB and PYB are the top of the tier when it comes to Conventional...if any grades of those two are still conventional that is.

Some of the cleanest engines I've seen ran on conventional used VWB at short intervals.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted by OilUzer
What is a typical "direct contact" pressure for example? I've never seen or studied those numbers. That's why I said 300 Mpa or more sound very high but may be those are realistic pressures in the regimes you have listed.

Remember that pressure is force divided by area, and it can get very high due to geometry when the contact area is very small, such as cam lobes contacting the valve lifters, where pressures even in the gigapascal (GPa) range (1 GPa = 145,000 psi) can be attained:

"high-load situations, when the cam pushes a valve with a force of nearly 20 kN, resulting in Hertzian contact pressure in the range of 3.5-4.0 GPa"

http://appliednanosurfaces.com/portfolio/camshafts/

The peak oil pressure in the journal bearings (not the oil-feed pressure into the bearings) can rise to the vicinity of the 10 - 100 MPa range, which is around 100 times the oil-feed pressure (0.05 - 0.5 MPa), depending on how small the minimum oil-film thickness (MOFT) is. The bearing experts here will have more definite numbers.

 

[aquariuscsm]

There was a guy on here years ago that had said he saw less wear on tear downs with engines that ran exclusively on dino.

 

[OilUzer]

Originally Posted by aquariuscsm
There was a guy on here years ago that had said he saw less wear on tear downs with engines that ran exclusively on dino.


Groups to choose from: I through V ...

when in doubt and to get the benefits of both worlds and like most other things in life, maybe the center would be a good choice! i.e. Group III

 

[Mad_Hatter]

Originally Posted by OilUzer
Originally Posted by aquariuscsm
There was a guy on here years ago that had said he saw less wear on tear downs with engines that ran exclusively on dino.


Groups to choose from: I through V ...

when in doubt and to get the benefits of both worlds and like most other things in life, maybe the center would be a good choice! i.e. Group III

I can't see how a grp2 is going to meet GF-6 when you consider GF6 is supposed to come up to D1G2 requirements. I'm not aware of any fully Grp2 that carries D1G2 approval. I don't believe it can..but I may be wrong. SOPUS has a couple D1G2 blends but I believe they're at least 50% grp3. If this is true, does that mean all lubes carrying GF-6 approval will become blends of grp3/grp2+???🤔

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter
I can't see how a grp2 is going to meet GF-6 when you consider GF6 is supposed to come up to D1G2 requirements. I'm not aware of any fully Grp2 that carries D1G2 approval. I don't believe it can..but I may be wrong. SOPUS has a couple D1G2 blends but I believe they're at least 50% grp3. If this is true, does that mean all lubes carrying GF-6 approval will become blends of grp3/grp2+???🤔

GF-6 will also have 15% Noack like GF-5; so, there is no change in the base-oil requirement -- Group II will be just fine, and we shouldn't see more synthetic or synthetic-blend oils suddenly appearing.

The only difference between GF-5 and GF-6 will be the additive package and VII type as usual.

 

[Mad_Hatter]

Originally Posted by Gokhan

GF-6 will also have 15% Noack like GF-5; so, there is no change in the base-oil requirement -- Group II will be just fine, and we shouldn't see more synthetic or synthetic-blend oils suddenly appearing.

The only difference between GF-5 and GF-6 will be the additive package and VII type as usual.

What about the timing chain wear tests of GF6? Will 100% dino's be able to meet that with just a change to add pkgs..or will it still be a grp2 but using a grp2+ plus addy's??

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter
What about the timing chain wear tests of GF6? Will 100% dino's be able to meet that with just a change to add pkgs..or will it still be a grp2 but using a grp2+ plus addy's??

The only advantage of synthetic oil for timing-chain wear I could see is possibly thicker base oil and less VII, which would help, but in practice synthetic oils tend to have similar amount of VII and similar base-oil viscosity as conventional oils.

My guess is that the main difference of the GF-6 additive package is more antioxidants and dispersants than in GF-5, which will decrease the oil oxidation, deposits, and sludge. It'll also reduce timing-chain wear by dispersing the abrasive soot particles in TGDI engines better.

 

[OilUzer]

Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter
What about the timing chain wear tests of GF6? Will 100% dino's be able to meet that with just a change to add pkgs..or will it still be a grp2 but using a grp2+ plus addy's??

The only advantage of synthetic oil for timing-chain wear I could see is possibly thicker base oil and less VII, which would help, but in practice synthetic oils tend to have similar amount of VII and similar base-oil viscosity as conventional oils.

My guess is that the main difference of the GF-6 additive package is more antioxidants and dispersants than in GF-5, which will decrease the oil oxidation, deposits, and sludge. It'll also reduce timing-chain wear by dispersing the abrasive soot particles in TGDI engines better.


I also recall one of the industry experts on here saying that synthetic oil is hard(er) on seals ... or maybe he was saying API SM or SN are harsh(er) on seals as oppose to SL ... I have to find that post.

What requirement (European or American) catches or tests for seal compatibility and/or service life of seals?

 

[Mad_Hatter]

Originally Posted by OilUzer
Originally Posted by Gokhan

The only advantage of synthetic oil for timing-chain wear I could see is possibly thicker base oil and less VII, which would help, but in practice synthetic oils tend to have similar amount of VII and similar base-oil viscosity as conventional oils.

My guess is that the main difference of the GF-6 additive package is more antioxidants and dispersants than in GF-5, which will decrease the oil oxidation, deposits, and sludge. It'll also reduce timing-chain wear by dispersing the abrasive soot particles in TGDI engines better.


I also recall one of the industry experts on here saying that synthetic oil is hard(er) on seals ... or maybe he was saying API SM or SN are harsh(er) on seals as oppose to SL ... I have to find that post.

What requirement (European or American) catches or tests for seal compatibility and/or service life of seals?

I think it's PAO's.. according to this chart/article, grp4's are mixed with ester's to prevent seal shrinkage. Mineral oils on the other hand have very good seal compatibility. I'm assuming a grp3 would fall into the "mineral oil" category, no?

PAO

 

[OilUzer]

What are the columns next to Mineral oil? Are they different base oils (e.g. Groups IV and V)?

 

[Mad_Hatter]

Originally Posted by OilUzer
What are the columns next to Mineral oil? Are they different base oils (e.g. Groups IV and V)?

Grp4 and 5's.. I'm not sure if there's a pcmo out there that's fully grp5 and I'm pretty sure that finished lubes using a grp4 contain some grp5 esters?? I'm only familiar with fully PAG or POE oils being used in compressors or transformers. Maybe somebody else can chime in on that...

 

[OilUzer]

Interesting that PAO (last column) pour point is L.

I assume L means Low as in "Low grade" and not Low as in temperature!

 

[RDY4WAR]

Originally Posted by Gokhan


There is still a caveat: The pressure - viscosity coefficient (PVC) decreases with the increasing viscosity index (VI). A lower PVC can arguably increase engine wear in certain regimes, and for those applications Group II base oils, which have the highest pressure - viscosity coefficient (PVC) may perhaps be more beneficial.


I just noticed this statement. That's not entirely true. It is in the sense of a broad spectrum and factoring VIIs. With normal ranges and VII aside, PVC is a result of the oil's molecular structure with no direct link to the viscosity index. A group II base oil with a VI of 119 could have a higher PVC than a group II with a VI of 101, for example. North American sweet crude tends to have a higher PVC than that sandy junk from the Middle East.

 

[OilUzer]

Originally Posted by OilUzer
Interesting that PAO (last column) pour point is L.

I assume L means Low as in "Low grade" and not Low as in temperature!


I see now. Low means Low ... lol
I thought they were grades like Above Average (AA), High (H), Low (L) ...

 

[Mad_Hatter]

Deleted

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted by RDY4WAR
Originally Posted by Gokhan
There is still a caveat: The pressure - viscosity coefficient (PVC) decreases with the increasing viscosity index (VI). A lower PVC can arguably increase engine wear in certain regimes, and for those applications Group II base oils, which have the highest pressure - viscosity coefficient (PVC) may perhaps be more beneficial.

I just noticed this statement. That's not entirely true. It is in the sense of a broad spectrum and factoring VIIs. With normal ranges and VII aside, PVC is a result of the oil's molecular structure with no direct link to the viscosity index. A group II base oil with a VI of 119 could have a higher PVC than a group II with a VI of 101, for example. North American sweet crude tends to have a higher PVC than that sandy junk from the Middle East.

VII usually has no effect in the regime the PVC plays a role because of extreme shear rates. We're talking about the base-oil VI here. That statement is referring to the following figure. The only difference between Group II and Group III is the VI. If you have Group I or a very cheap Group II that is almost a Group I, with a lot of unsaturated molecules, it's a different story. The statement should probably hold for Group II+ through Group III+ oils.

It is tricky because lower PVC is compensated by higher VI. Some Chevron patent that I posted a couple of times on BITOG claims that GTL produces less wear than Group II because of its higher "PVC index," not because of its higher PVC, which is probably lower than that of Group II, or higher VI.

 

[Gokhan]

Here is the patent (PDF link):

Lubricating oil with improved wear properties (PVC-index patent) -- WO2012087415A2 (Chevron)

I just went through the patent again, and the following is what I found.

Most of their GTL formulations have much higher base-oil KV100 than their Group II formulations. Moreover, GTL has a much higher VI; so, combining these two factors results in their GTL base oils having a much higher base-oil viscosity at 150 °C than their Group II base oils. Therefore, I don't think PVC or PVC index has anything to do with their results.

This is why I believe that in order to get the least wear, you should find an oil with the highest base-oil viscosity at 150 °C you can find. I have a thread in the white papers/technical discussions section about this. Usually 15W-40 oils, which start from a very thick Group II base oil and use very little VII have the highest base-oil viscosity at 150 °C. 5W-20 oils tend to do well. There is no guarantee with the choice of the brand, even with premium synthetic oil. However, Valvoline Advanced Synthetic had an excellent base-oil viscosity at 150 °C, for all or most its SAE viscosity grades.

I wouldn't worry much about the PVC given the base-oil viscosity and base-oil viscosity index play a much bigger role (and the closely related VII content -- the lower the better), and you don't know what the PVC is anyway.

 

[RDY4WAR]

I view that graph as averages for each group and not a set standard for each. I imagine if several base oils from each group were tested, you'd probably have a spectrum with some overlapping going on.

I base this off conversations with a few formulators and lubrication engineers in the racing industry. As one stated "There's a reason the Nitro 70 used in the 11,000 hp Top Fuel dragsters is made with North American sweet crude."