Lower NOACK = Better Oil???

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: Shannow
It's obvious that some people don't get the concept of Noack...it's not something that has anything to do with the temperature of the oil in the sump...absolutely nothing to do with sump temperature...oils don't "run cool enough" for Noack to be irrelevant no matter how the science "feels"

It's supposed to represent what happens to the oil that is left above the rings on the downstroke (the rings are hydrodynamically lubricated on the upstroke when the piston speeds up, so the oil has to be the film that has been on the wall, exposed to the heat, oil pressure doesn't get it there).

Studies show that this oil is enriched in additives, so must be so as the oil evaporates off...smaller engines with greater BMEP are MORE likely to have cylinder temperatures that evaporate more.

Noack IS relevent, has nothing to do with sump temperatures and turbos

It never ceases to amaze me how much you like to spread miss information. The December issue of Lubes "N' Greases has an interesting article titled "Volatility: The Inside Story", for those that want to read it.

Some basic facts.
Limiting engine oil volatility has everything to do with controlling oil consumption and oil thickening as a result.
A couple of quotes from the paper:
"The question was, how to maintain healthy engine oil viscosity when vapor losses kept eroding the oil in the sump?"

"Low temperature oil viscosity can suffer when vehicles operate under high-temperature conditions (which volatilize the light ends of the oil and lead to thickening)."


Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
The Noack spec' of an oil doesn"t concern me much as it has no effect that I can detect, besides no synthetic has a poor Noack.
It is important to the OEMs primarily for emission control reasons and therefore if the oil is on a recommended company list it's Noack is acceptable.


http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3431515/Re:_Castrol_0w40_vs_Mobil_1_0w#Post3431500

Guess that you DID read the links after accusing me of continually spreading misinformation...
 
35.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow

It's supposed to represent what happens to the oil that is left above the rings on the downstroke (the rings are hydrodynamically lubricated on the upstroke when the piston speeds up, so the oil has to be the film that has been on the wall, exposed to the heat, oil pressure doesn't get it there).



Isn't that boundary lubrication?

I think engines are usually are a mix of hydrostatic and boundary.
 
Last edited:
Bump again...still trying to work out how I got from purveyor of misinformation to part of the common knowledge...but still discountable.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Bump again...still trying to work out how I got from purveyor of misinformation to part of the common knowledge...but still discountable.


You called his bluff! I think his ego is a little bruised from being pwned on the forum where he's gained so much admiration for his backyard brews.

I for one, thank you for posting such relevant and referenced information. If the whole internet posted like you, I think we could actually learn something and evolve a little faster.

BTW I clicked on this thread because I have a 2014 Mazda3 2.5L with DI. I opted to get the 5w-20 Amsoil SS instead of the 0w-20 because it has a 5.5 NOACK vs 9.3 on the Ow-20.

Did I done good, boss?
laugh.gif
 
Originally Posted By: bobbydavro
Love it! This guy looks at VI like some measure of performance.


also reneges on his bets about it...

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3378475/Re:_Toyota_TGMO_0W-20_SN_VOA_w#Post3378475
 
i would think noack gained importance in todays direct injected carbon prone engines. burnt vapors from weaker oils may speed up deposits. face it we are the test bed for DI, $50,000 Audi with carbon issues at lo miles stinks!!! i guess they are getting better but until someone goes at least 200,000 miles without issue i consider it unproven tech!!!!
 
Originally Posted By: Jeffs2006EvoIX
Originally Posted By: Shannow
It's obvious that some people don't get the concept of Noack...it's not something that has anything to do with the temperature of the oil in the sump...absolutely nothing to do with sump temperature...oils don't "run cool enough" for Noack to be irrelevant no matter how the science "feels"

It's supposed to represent what happens to the oil that is left above the rings on the downstroke (the rings are hydrodynamically lubricated on the upstroke when the piston speeds up, so the oil has to be the film that has been on the wall, exposed to the heat, oil pressure doesn't get it there).

Studies show that this oil is enriched in additives, so must be so as the oil evaporates off...smaller engines with greater BMEP are MORE likely to have cylinder temperatures that evaporate more.

Noack IS relevent, has nothing to do with sump temperatures and turbos


In relation to DI fuel delivery and intake valve deposits perspective the above statement makes sense. High Saps having more detergents higher NOACK would equate to more vapor going out the valves and being recirc'd.

So in essence in a DI motor particularly this may prove that low saps and low NOACK WOULD equate to a lower risk of deposit formation.

So do manufacturers like VW stating to use 502 oils in North America (amongst other places) is for the sole purpose of having an oil that can last for their 10k mile oil changes. Not necessarily that 502 oils provide better lubrication or what not. Correct?

That M1 ESP 5w30 is looking real good to me now. Low Saps AND low NOACK. Just need way more frequent changes.

I feel some folks actually feel 502 oils actually "lubricate" better due to all the additives. I disagreed.

Jeff


Title with Link of an interesting article below...

Turbocharged Direct injection
Is
Engine Oil’s Next Big Hurdle


http://gf-6.com/sites/default/files/Turb...ig%20Hurdle.pdf
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top