YT VIDEO: I read the Valvoline Premium Blue Restore patent so you don't have to ... WARNING: SCIENCE

Joined
Jun 28, 2017
Messages
7,825
Location
Show Me


@buster brought to my attention this video patent is regarding Valvoline Blue Restore product that was developed several years back for Cummins engines that were suffering carbon build up & oil consumption. The guy in the video does claim to think this patent covers the Restore & Protect but who knows.

This video highlights some of the wording regarding Valvoline Blue Restore US patent papers.
  • Trying to minimize oil consumption during use.
  • Use of Aniline Point to describe solvency of the base oil
  • A blend of two or more base oils to obtain solvency w/typical additives
  • Aniline Point of particularly 60 degrees Celsius have been found to be effective solvency
  • NOACK must be less than 15% and preferably less then 10% & generally less than 8%
  • Preferably the VI will be greater than 120, preferably greater than 135, & more preferably 150 or higher
  • Preferred polyalphaolefin & Alphaolefin (1-octene, 1-decene, 1-dodecene, 1-tetradecene)
  • Possibly using Priolube 1973 (Oxidatively Stable Ester used in 4 stoke in 5%-30% ranges)
  • Trying to strike the best balance between solvency & seal compatibility
  • They make mention of a typical oil change interval of 5,000 mile w/a product like R&P.
  • Possibly using group III, IV, V.
 
Last edited:
He did a follow up video saying how the patent is not the R&P formulation (11:00 min). Entirely different oil.


Yeah, lots of splainin' going on in this video. I've updated the title & info to redirect the topic correctly. I appreciate you having the knowledge to see the difference that I did not. Although it's a good dive into the patent it's unfortunate that he claims this may be the same patent that covers Restore & Protect. Requested move to HDEO forum.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, lots of splainin' going on in this video. I've updated the title & info to redirect the topic correctly. I appreciate you having the knowledge to see the difference that I did not. Although it's a good dive into the patent it's unfortunate that he claims this may be the same patent that covers Restore & Protect. Requested move to HDEO forum.
No problem. He was kind of beating around the bush claiming the patent "could eventually" include something like R&P so they wouldn't have to file another patent. Maybe that is true but he did acknowledge that R&P is nothing like PBR chemically. (y)
 
No problem. He was kind of beating around the bush claiming the patent "could eventually" include something like R&P so they wouldn't have to file another patent. Maybe that is true but he did acknowledge that R&P is nothing like PBR chemically. (y)
These were the only patents I found roughly during that period:

IMG_2979.webp
 
Back
Top