Why is 0w20 Pennzoil Platinum's Flash Point Relatively Low?

[IndyFan]

PP 0w20 has a published flash point 403 Farenheit. Mobil 1 0w20 AP is published at 468. PP's SOPUS Sister, Quaker State Ultimate Durability 0w20 is at 462.

What gives with the Pennzoil Platinum?

Does a lower flashpoint correlate to less ability to protect or withstand high temperatures? I know PP probably does fine in most vehicles, but some turbo engines might press the limit on it when running hard.

Just curious about what exactly flash point can tell us about an oil.

 

[jongies3]

Your engine will never get hot enough for that to matter, if it does, you got bigger problems.

 

[IndyFan]

Originally Posted by jongies3
Your engine will never get hot enough for that to matter, if it does, you got bigger problems.


That's not exactly what I asked, but thanks.

 

[kschachn]

Flash point tells you almost nothing about the quality of the oil for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the high variability in test results (not reproducible). Back in the day when I ran ASTM tests in college it was used to gauge the relative quality of the base oil composition but these days much better tests are available.

All it tells you is what temperature the oil will ignite when in the presence of a flame. But there are different methods and each will give a different (and variable) result that should not be compared to the alternate method.

 

[bubbatime]

Originally Posted by jongies3
Your engine will never get hot enough for that to matter, if it does, you got bigger problems.


You sure about that? How hot do you think those piston rings are getting? How hot do you think those cylinder walls are getting? How hot are those pistons getting? Many engines squirt oil onto the back of the pistons to cool them off.

 

[IndyFan]

Originally Posted by kschachn
Flash point tells you almost nothing about the quality of the oil for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the high variability in test results (not reproducible). Back in the day when I ran ASTM tests in college it was used to gauge the relative quality of the base oil composition but these days much better tests are available.

All it tells you is what temperature the oil will ignite when in the presence of a flame. But there are different methods and each will give a different (and variable) result that should not be compared to the alternate method.


Interesting. If it is that unreliable, why would nearly every oil maker publish it as a standard measure? I would think that if they considered it unreliable, they would simply stop reporting it, especially if the data isn't flattering. Or, why would they not continue the unreliable test until they get a number that looks good and just publish that? I'm just wondering what compels them to use it?

 

[Danh]

The Pennzoil flashpoint of 204C is tested according to ASTM D93. Mobil1's 224C is based on ASTM D92 (open cup vs closed cup test method). D92 results are typically about 20C higher than D93, so really no difference between the two.

These flash points don't quite jive with your F numbers, but are based on the most recent TDS on each maker's website.

 

[Imp4]

Originally Posted by bubbatime
Originally Posted by jongies3
Your engine will never get hot enough for that to matter, if it does, you got bigger problems.


You sure about that? How hot do you think those piston rings are getting? How hot do you think those cylinder walls are getting? How hot are those pistons getting? Many engines squirt oil onto the back of the pistons to cool them off.

Yes, we are sure that your engine will never get hot enough for that to matter, if it does, you got bigger problems.

If you're worried that flashpoint will be an issue in localized heating and that this should be the focus of your concern, please inform us of which performance characteristics you have eliminated from overall consideration as part of your focus on flash point..... In other words, what in your mind, makes flash point so important that other performance characteristics would become of minor importance?

And also please add which performance characteristics in addition to flash point would still be cause for concern or interest when evaluating this flash point difference.

Thanks.....

 

[IndyFan]

Originally Posted by Danh
The Pennzoil flashpoint of 204C is tested according to ASTM D93. Mobil1's 224C is based on ASTM D92 (open cup vs closed cup test method). D92 results are typically about 20C higher than D93, so really no difference between the two.

These flash points don't quite jive with your F numbers, but are based on the most recent TDS on each maker's website.


Good to know. This implies that the test is more reliable than kschachn said. So is either or both tests reliable and repeatable? My numbers came from their web sites today. I used Google to convert them to farenheit, and rounded up to the nearest whole number for each. I blame Google if they are off a bit more than the rounding accounted for.

 

[Imp4]

Originally Posted by IndyFan
Interesting. If it is that unreliable, why would nearly every oil maker publish it as a standard measure? I would think that if they considered it unreliable, they would simply stop reporting it, especially if the data isn't flattering. Or, why would they not continue the unreliable test until they get a number that looks good and just publish that? I'm just wondering what compels them to use it?

Probably for a similar reason that they publish notoriously non-repeatable Noack values that have been standardized in ASTM D5800....
Just ask Kurt Noack....

And those are followed by many here as gospel....

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted by IndyFan
Interesting. If it is that unreliable, why would nearly every oil maker publish it as a standard measure? I would think that if they considered it unreliable, they would simply stop reporting it, especially if the data isn't flattering. Or, why would they not continue the unreliable test until they get a number that looks good and just publish that? I'm just wondering what compels them to use it?

It's not very repeatable and is too determinant on the operator. Every ASTM (or other standardized test) has a published tolerance and this one is particularly high. You don't keep testing until you get a number you like, you test it as many times as the procedure dictates you do so then you report the result in accordance with the significance that is also dictated in the test.

Why do they keep publishing it? Good question, the same thing could be asked about pour point.

Here is a past thread on the subject with input by someone who knows a lot more about it than I do:

Thread

You were involved in that thread and it was about nearly the same subject. Did you forget?

 

[tiger862]

Flash point is the temperature at which an oil gives off vapors that can be ignited with a flame held over the oil. The lower the flash point the greater tendancy for the oil to suffer vaporization loss at high temperatures and to burn off on hot cylinder walls and pistons. The flash point can be an indicator of the quality of the base stock used. The higher the flash point the better. 400 F is the minimum to prevent possible high consumption. Flash point is in degrees F.

http://www.micapeak.com/info/oiled.html

 

[IndyFan]

Originally Posted by kschachn
Originally Posted by IndyFan
Interesting. If it is that unreliable, why would nearly every oil maker publish it as a standard measure? I would think that if they considered it unreliable, they would simply stop reporting it, especially if the data isn't flattering. Or, why would they not continue the unreliable test until they get a number that looks good and just publish that? I'm just wondering what compels them to use it?

It's not very repeatable and is too determinant on the operator. Every ASTM (or other standardized test) has a published tolerance and this one is particularly high. You don't keep testing until you get a number you like, you test it as many times as the procedure dictates you do so then you report the result in accordance with the significance that is also dictated in the test.

Why do they keep publishing it? Good question, the same thing could be asked about pour point.

Here is a past thread on the subject with input by someone who knows a lot more about it than I do:

Thread

You were involved in that thread and it was about nearly the same subject. Did you forget?


No, my questions are a bit different this time. Do you ever come back to topics you've thought about before and explore it further? I'm obviously still curious about it as I look at different oils and their data sheets.

Thanks again for the info.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

Well first off tiger you just plagiarized that article, and since you did and it's wrong, I will point out a glaring error in your quote. "The lower the flash point the greater the (sic) tendancy for the oil to suffer vaporization loss at high temperatures..." well, that's called the NOACK test, not flash point. Flash point was correctly described in the first sentence alone.

I also call BS on the "higher the flash point the better" and "400F is the minimum to prevent possible high consumption" because well, you could use a fireproof hydraulic fluid with a flash point of 1000* and it's not going to do s&!t to protect your engine, and there have been many, many UOAs on here with some fuel dilution and flash points under 400F with ZERO consumption, my UOAs included.

I agree with kschachn, there is such a proliferation of self-appointed experts these days that hang their hat on tests that have little repeatability or true relevance to usage in an actual engine, and then try to drive oil choices based solely on those. Don't.

 

[IndyFan]

Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
Well first off tiger you just plagiarized that article, and since you did and it's wrong, I will point out a glaring error in your quote. "The lower the flash point the greater the (sic) tendancy for the oil to suffer vaporization loss at high temperatures..." well, that's called the NOACK test, not flash point. Flash point was correctly described in the first sentence alone.

I also call BS on the "higher the flash point the better" and "400F is the minimum to prevent possible high consumption" because well, you could use a fireproof hydraulic fluid with a flash point of 1000* and it's not going to do s&!t to protect your engine, and there have been many, many UOAs on here with some fuel dilution and flash points under 400F with ZERO consumption, my UOAs included.

I agree with kschachn, there is such a proliferation of self-appointed experts these days that hang their hat on tests that have little repeatability or true relevance to usage in an actual engine, and then try to drive oil choices based solely on those. Don't.


Again, if the tests aren't relevant, why do nearly all oil brands pubilsh them? There must be some value they see in them? I'm skeptical of the idea that oil enthusiasts make up enough of the market to cause these companies to pander to their perceptions.

 

[aquariuscsm]

If an oil has a higher flashpoint,is it less likely to cause varnish in high temperature areas in the engine?

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

IndyFan, I think part of it is the "me too" mentality. If somebody sells something that everybody loves, and uses some "magical" test to show how much better theirs is, everyone else will then use that test to show how much better theirs is than the original product.

 

[tiger862]

https://books.google.com/books?id=g...s%20noack%20of%20motor%20oil&f=false

Read and enjoy.

 

[kschachn]

Sometimes tests used to be more "valid" when there was nothing else (such as the pour point test), other times they still have some validity as a screening tool, sometimes they have little validity but are still performed to catch gross misformulations. I worked for many years as a research technologist for a large corporation and it was part of my job to perform standardized qualification tests on many materials. One of them was carbon black and there was an ASTM test for conductivity. It had huge allowed variances despite the test equipment being made in accordance with the ASTM requirements. ASTM even noted this in the analysis section. But we still performed it as a qualification test (and reported the results) because it would indicate if a particular batch of carbon black had been improperly vacuum heat treated. But a much more relevant test for the effects of heat treatment was an iodine number. This is similar to how pour point has been supplanted by a pumpability and cold-cranking test that is more relevant to the behavior of oil in an engine and in the cold.

So oil formulators and blenders may perform a test that is relatively useless to the end user but may still have some relevancy to them as the manufacturer. Be careful though as it may have relevancy in an area that has little to do with the performance in the intended application. It might only be performed to provide an accurate MSDS for example.

As always if someone wishes to try and ascribe relevancy despite indications to the contrary they are welcome to do so.

 

[tiger862]

Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
Well first off tiger you just plagiarized that article, and since you did and it's wrong, I will point out a glaring error in your quote. "The lower the flash point the greater the (sic) tendancy for the oil to suffer vaporization loss at high temperatures..." well, that's called the NOACK test, not flash point. Flash point was correctly described in the first sentence alone.

I also call BS on the "higher the flash point the better" and "400F is the minimum to prevent possible high consumption" because well, you could use a fireproof hydraulic fluid with a flash point of 1000* and it's not going to do s&!t to protect your engine, and there have been many, many UOAs on here with some fuel dilution and flash points under 400F with ZERO consumption, my UOAs included.

I agree with kschachn, there is such a proliferation of self-appointed experts these days that hang their hat on tests that have little repeatability or true relevance to usage in an actual engine, and then try to drive oil choices based solely on those. Don't.


Wrong I quoted a paragraph then referenced article