XOM statement in LnG contradicts BITOG

[jason07-1zzfe]

In the current (3/04) LnG magazine(pg20, Rethink Your Stock Options), Peter Brown, industrial marketing manager of synthetics is discussing their Alkylated Napthalene basestock. He says they performed a Toyota 3E valvetrain wear test with two formulations, a PAO-POE and POE-AN-5 blend, each with 1% ZDDP where the cam lobe wear and rocker pad scuffing ratings of the AN-5 formulation showed significantly less scuffing and wear compared to ester version. He then states: "probably because it is less polar and so the antiwear additives can work better"

Earlier in text they talk about AN's lower polarity and weaker oil film haveing less surface affinity, thus leaving a clear field for surface hugging additives such as EP and AW. And that the polarity of esters can be quite high, so they may compete with surface active additives.

This seems to contradict everything learned at BITOG, unless I am mistaken. Also goes against logic. But hey he is marketing manager so he has to think of something to prop up their new toy...

I understand that esters being more polar and sufactants with excellent solubility actually delivers the additives even better than anything else. The polarity seems like a good thing, getting the additives closer to the metal?? Every thing read at BITOG says it is a good thing as well.

They say the AN has good solubility but I think the polarity would have been a good thing...

So is polarity good or bad??

 

[Terry]

Jason, One of the chemists can do better that I can but basically its what Auto-Rx's Frank Miller has tried to share here about chemistry competing for metal or surfaces.

Bottom line is what do you use for the total formulation and what kind of performance to you want from that formulation.

I do agree that this fella may be promoting his product and emphasizing a test result that it showed well in while competing against a less optimum formulation, note it is one test.


Putting it simply he is saying hey we have a cheaper alternative when using the lowered levels of traditional EP/AW required now and our product does a great job of carrying the adds to the target area while hydrodynamically providing lubrication at lower treat rates. READ , we save you money MR oil formulator.


Just an opinion.

TD

 

[jason07-1zzfe]

Right, I understand what Frank has said. I guess I thought it was only afecting the base oils maybe...

If the additives are completely dissolved in the ester, how can the ester being attracted to the metal be a bad thing, when the adds are dissolved in it?

And how can a liquid be a sufactant(as esters are), yet prevent something dissolved in it from reaching surface? Seams contradictory.

I guess my point is I have never heard of polarity of esters being bad, except for affecting autorx speed of cleaning.

Wouldn't adding ARX negatively affect additive function in oils also, if what mobil says is true. That should increase wear, but it lowers it.

Still sounds like Mobil making up stuff to say esters are bad, like on their website were they say PAO are so much better than esters.

They also plainly state AN has a weaker oil film. I suppose they are trying to convince us that is a good thing now too...

[ March 23, 2004, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: Jason Troxell ]

 

[buster]

Mobil isn't making anything up. They never said esters are bad, they just said using them like RL does isn't necessary. RL contains PAO, but much more ester then M1/Amsoil.

Mobil does make ester based oils for F1 I've been told, like 0w-5 etc. But for street use, it's not necessary. You also need to have PAO in their for seal compatibility.

[ March 23, 2004, 05:59 PM: Message edited by: buster ]

 

[jason07-1zzfe]

quote:

---

Originally posted by buster:
... Some of their F1 0w-5 oils are ester based. ...

---

Exactly, because it is superior.

The website does not read like ester is unecessary, it reads as if they are inferior. At least it did, havent checked in a while. And this LnG article reads as if esters are inferior as well.
Everything I've read here has indicated the polar aspect of esters is good. Not a negative as Mobil states.
If that were the case, wouldn't group I provide best wear characteristics, since it is supposed to have good solubility and has a weaker oil film (like AN) and is obvioulsy not polar. But even Schaeffers does not use Group I anymore...

 

[buster]

From Mobil's Webpage:

Red Line Oil claims to have 100 percent polyolester base stocks. Are these different or better than the base stocks used in Mobil 1 with SuperSyn™?

We are very familiar with polyolesters. In fact, we manufacture them and use them in our aviation jet engine oils such as Mobil Jet Oil II® and Mobil Jet Oil 254® and in our refrigeration compressor lubricants, where the polyolesters are utilized for their compatibility with new HFC refrigerants. Polyolesters are indeed excellent at high-temperature oxidation stability and low volatility.

However, our work on automobile engines and jet engine designs has shown that polyalphaolefins (PAOs) offer the best all-around performance for gasoline engines due to their:

Being completely compatible with conventional oils and gasoline engine seals.
Providing both low- and high-temperature performance.
Providing a stable oil in the presence of water and moisture.
Having anti-rust capabilities.

 

[MolaKule]

quote:

---

I understand that esters being more polar and sufactants with excellent solubility actually delivers the additives even better than anything else. The polarity seems like a good thing, getting the additives closer to the metal?? Every thing read at BITOG says it is a good thing as well.

They say the AN has good solubility but I think the polarity would have been a good thing...

---

My take on his statement is that HIS division is trying to mmake the AN's more public and sellable. His division is trying to show people who are blenders that a PAO/AN mix is less costly; but in my view, at what price in wear?

The Tri-Syn was a PAO, AN, and cocamide ester mix, which didn't fair too well overall. In my view, they should have left the AN out of the mix, but were trying to reduce costs by using lower ester levels and increasing AN levels.

POE Ester's solvability, especially the TMP and TME esters, is very good, and enhances the additives ability to reach the metal, whereas PAO has almost no solvency. A number of technical papers show ester's ability to provide a superior pressure film while taking the additives to the metal surface. Without some ester solvency, the additives would have a hard time competing with the PAO.

AN's are very good for low temperature tuning of an oil or for purely artic operation.

My thoughts are use PAO and AN's without esters, or use PAO with esters only.

If there was any competition, it was between the esters and the AN.

PAO's are great as base fluid's because one can mix various viscosities to obtain any intermediate viscosity, they have good film strength's (below POE's), and provide thermal and shear stability to the mix. But one has to have a thermally stable fluid that also acts as good surfactant and add solver, of which AN's are not.

One thing to remember is that many oil companies, one example being ChevronPhillips, is putting pressure on Mobil because they are producing high quality PAO's in more viscosities.

The bottom line here is the "Bottom Line."

 

[nick778]

Is it possible that George CLS' statement last year that M1 SuperSyn does not contain esters implies the new formula is a PAO-Advanced AN formulation? Just a thought.

Also, give the information provided by Mola, it would seem ARX would like a high milege dino that has some esters in it rather than compete with the esters as I believe Frank has stated. I'm confused on this apparent contradiction.

 

[G-MAN]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nick778:
Is it possible that George CLS' statement last year that M1 SuperSyn does not contain esters implies the new formula is a PAO-Advanced AN formulation? Just a thought.

---

I think this is entirely possible, and I'd be willing to accept that Mobil 1 may not have any BASE OIL esters in it under this scenario—though it would still have additive esters in it. If TriSyn was Mobil's first attempt at reducing the content of expensive esters, then it's entirely possible that SuperSyn was the "magic bullet" that enabled them to do it: Throw in some of the high vis, high VI SuperSyn PAO, eliminate the esters, and go with a high treat rate of alkylated napthalene with the result being a Mobil 1 that is less expensivle to produce than TriSyn, but which gives superior wear performance, especially in light of the reduced ZDDP levels.

Hmmm...I may wind up owing GeorgeCLS an apology since this scenario seems entirely plausible.

 

[buster]

quote:

---

One thing to remember is that many oil companies, one example being ChevronPhillips, is putting pressure on Mobil because they are producing high quality PAO's in more viscosities.

---

Competition is a good thing. I guess EM will have to start making more PAO's in various viscosities. It's quite possible Amsoil is using Chevron's PAO's or a less quality PAO then what EM is using for M1.

George would know and I think he could be right. He also said over 2yrs ago that NASCAR was using Mobil 1 R, which is a state of the art PAO that doesn't go out the door to anyone but EM. If this is true, it makes perfect sense as to why George said what he did.

 

[GeorgeCLS]

And thank you.... Gosh, do I well remember the scowls that occurred with my statements about the elimination of ester from Mobil 1?? Whew... But yes, as I shared, that has been a long standing order for the folks in the M1 formulation group: displace the ester but don't compromise M1 performance.. And from all indications they did and were in fact able to improve performance in certain areas. All from a molecule design that had been developed years before and left dormant due to no apparent application....
George

 

[jason07-1zzfe]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MolaKule:
...If there was any competition, it was between the esters and the AN....

---

Sorry, I just noticed I had a typo in the original post, which I think you are refering to...Both tests were with a PAO blend, PAO-POE and PAO-AN-5. NOT POE-AN-5.
Don't know if that changes your opinion or not.

Thanks again for replying and clearing that up!

 

[nick778]

quote:

---

Originally posted by GeorgeCLS:
.. that has been a long standing order for the folks in the M1 formulation group: displace the ester but don't compromise M1 performance.. And from all indications they did and were in fact able to improve performance in certain areas. All from a molecule design that had been developed years before and left dormant due to no apparent application....
George

---

Does this indeed mean that SuperSyn M1 does substitute an advanced AN for POE? If so, how does M1 accomplish any solvency for the additives and thermal stability that Molacule talks about(sure would explain the lowering of flash points and increase in pour points from Tri Syn to SuperSyn in the 5w/10w-30 oils)? Do they add some additive Grp III for these purposes? Wow, this would be a revelation. Personally, if I am going to pay $4.50-$5/qt for a synthetic, make mine PAO/POE and not PAO/AN....unless I am missing something.

ps-want to make a new 0w-30 or 0w-40, just use more AN and a higher vis PAO base?

 

[G-MAN]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nick778:
Does this indeed mean that SuperSyn M1 does substitute an advanced AN for POE? If so, how does M1 accomplish any solvency for the additives and thermal stability that Molacule talks about(sure would explain the lowering of flash points and increase in pour points from Tri Syn to SuperSyn in the 5w/10w-30 oils)? Do they add some additive Grp III for these purposes?

---

If Mobil 1 has no base oil esters, then the solvency comes from the esters that are used as the additive carrier.

Keep something in mind: Group III solvency is no better than PAO, adding Group III to PAO isn't going to get you anything as far as solvency. A Group III based oil will need just as much ester for solvency as a PAO based oil would.

 

[nick778]

In the above post, I meant to say Group II+ but in any event, I understand they have to use something like an additive ester or Group I/II dino to carry the additive package in suspension. But how do they accomplish general solvency and/or thermal stability. The paper says ANs have good solvency but Molacule says not. All very interesting. Perhaps this is why we see more general bearing wear with SuperSyn also(?).

One other general comment. EM still uses PAO/POE for their most durable oil Delvac 1. I have to think if PAO/AN was 'better' we'd also see it in Delvac. The fact that Delvac costs a little more and is primarily a fleet oil with a more demanding use market profile leads me to believe that, exclusive of cost, PAO/POE is a better formulation. Maybe I'll stick to my PAO/POE Amsoil ASL/ATM.

 

[MolaKule]

quote:

---

But yes, as I shared, that has been a long standing order for the folks in the M1 formulation group: displace the ester but don't compromise M1 performance..

---

Sorry, but it wouldn't be the formulators who wanted esters out of there, it would be the bean counters, since esters are 5X cost of mineral oil. Formulators and tribologists know of the superiority of POE's.

And just because Mobil ran some tests doesn't mean it is using the AN's in Mobil 1.

As I said above, "AN's are very good for low temperature tuning of an oil or for purely artic operation." Conoco produced an arctic oil using AN's back in the sixites and seventies for the Alaskian pipeline crews.

I never said AN's don't have good solubility, they do but are one step below that of POE's, and generally have low VII's compared to POE's.

Now, back in July of 1990, a Mobil European patent was filed (I have only a summary) which reported the reacted C20 to C100 olefin oligomers with alkylated aromatic compounds, but that means EXOM's AN's are simply alkylated PAO's. They were reported to have high VI's, low pour points, and improved thermal stability.

Maybe George can elaborate as to whether this patent is the secret bullet that sat on the shelf for a long time.

[ March 25, 2004, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]

 

[nick778]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MolaKule:

But one has to have a thermally stable fluid that also acts as good surfactant and add solver, of which AN's are not.

---

Sorry Mola, didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I misinterpreted the above statement and that ANs didn't possess good soluability or thermal stability. Guess I confused add solver with general soluability.

 

[MolaKule]

If this article came from the latest issue of Lubes and Greases, then the article states that they in the testing stages of PAO/AN mixtures. It was also stated that AN-12 (12-cSt) does not have as good a solubility as does An-5.

The article also said that while AN is non-toxic, it is not biodegradable.

They are also testing GIII/AN mixtures as well. This will be an interesting development, IMHO.

In Brown's statement in the article he said, this gives them "a lot of the properties of PAO and lot of the properties of ester." He should have qualified this by saying that one of the properties missing is biodegradeability.

Connecting the dots bewteen the L-n-G article and the 1990 patent, I have to believe that these are one and the same.


BTW, there is more to oil testing than a single valve train system test.

[ March 25, 2004, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]

 

[buster]

What would a test cost to break down Mobil 1 to see it's make up? I'd actually consider doing this. Very interesting discussion. All I can say is thank god Molekule is around.

[ March 25, 2004, 06:52 PM: Message edited by: buster ]

 

[buster]

quote:

---

In the current (3/04) LnG magazine(pg20, Rethink Your Stock Options), Peter Brown, industrial marketing manager of synthetics is discussing their Alkylated Napthalene basestock. He says they performed a Toyota 3E valvetrain wear test with two formulations, a PAO-POE and POE-AN-5 blend, each with 1% ZDDP where the cam lobe wear and rocker pad scuffing ratings of the AN-5 formulation showed significantly less scuffing and wear compared to ester version. He then states: "probably because it is less polar and so the antiwear additives can work better"

Earlier in text they talk about AN's lower polarity and weaker oil film haveing less surface affinity, thus leaving a clear field for surface hugging additives such as EP and AW. And that the polarity of esters can be quite high, so they may compete with surface active additives.

---

This is a topic that interested me especially after reading how Shell uses group III blends for F1 racing. Wonder if this applies here?