Why is high Calcium levels a positive?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Calcium is part of the detergent package, so if you want an oil with a rich detergent package, then high Calcium would be a positive for you.
 
Thanks guys, the comparison to Magnesium was going to be the other direction I headed in. Nice anticipation greg24.

So it serves as both, anti wear and detergent agent.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
AFAIK, Calcium is predominantly used as a detergent...

http://www.pqiamerica.com/calcium.htm


Great link, don't know why I didn't look there first. Heck, I visit PQIA all the time.
33.gif
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: wemay
Thanks guys, the comparison to Magnesium was going to be the other direction I headed in.

I'm sure Mola and others could explain exactly why, but it seems to me that we see magnesium more often in HDEOs that require both a high TBN and a low SA, such as an ACEA E7/E9 lube.
 
High Ca isn't always a positive. It leads to ash, which can block DPFs.

Ca and Mg also have different hydrolysis effects. Mg detergents tends to react with water more readily than Ca - I used to develop marine engine oils and Mg detergents were almost unheard of (a lot of engines use centrifugal separators that have a water/oil interface).

Ash hardness is also a factor. When I was developing oils for natural/landfill gas stationary powergen engines, ash hardness was a real concern as it could damage valve seats and burn out valves.
 
It all has to be balanced quite carefully, seems like. This is why I've since evolved away from the 'Noack is EVERYTHING' position I once, amateurishly, held. Every ingredient, standardized test, approval and certification must be included to determine quality or lack there of.
 
Originally Posted By: wemay
It all has to be balanced quite carefully, seems like.

Absolutely. It's not about any one ingredient or a single spec in particular. It's the overall formulation that needs to work as a whole to address a specific need, such as an mfg certification.
 
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: wemay
It all has to be balanced quite carefully, seems like.

Absolutely. It's not about any one ingredient or a single spec in particular. It's the overall formulation that needs to work as a whole to address a specific need, such as an mfg certification.


This is why I don't like the idea of frankenbrew mixtures of oil. Sure they'll still work but mixing different types of additives from different manufacturers will unbalance everything.
 
"Frankenbrews"

Yup, another thought altogether. You may not be harming anything since all labels say 'compatible with all conventional and synthetic oil' (the reason i always thought it didnt make a difference), but is changing the chemistry worth it in the longe run? Once or twice, i'm sure it's fine. All the time? Not so sure.

Mixing just doesn't appear to be the optimal usage of any oil included in said mix.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: wemay
"Frankenbrews"

Yup, another thought altogether. You may not be harming anything since all oils say 'compatible with all conventional and synthetic... But is changing the chemistry worth it in the longe run? Once or twice, i'm sure it's fine. All the time? Not so sure.

Mixing just doesn't appear to be the optimal usage of any oil included in said mix.


You're right, it's the difference between compatible and optimized that everyone misses with Frankenbrews.

Sure you can mix oils, but I don't think you are improving anything by throwing two quarts of TGMO in with three quarts of M1 0W-40.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top