Infineum - Striking the right balance

Status
Not open for further replies.

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
58,050
Location
Ontario, Canada
http://www.infineuminsight.com/insight/sep-2013/striking-the-right-balance

Originally Posted By: Infineum

There have been so many papers published on the subject that by now the industry is fully aware that one way to deliver fuel economy (FE) is to lower the viscosity of engine lubricants.

However, the use of these low viscosity oils raises the possibility of increased engine wear – which means research into fuel economy really morphs into research into wear prevention.

Fuel-economy-inline-chart-2.jpg


The work undertaken by Infineum over the past six years, some of which has featured in previous Insight features, has demonstrated that viscosity reduction is the most important lubricant formulation lever for achieving fuel economy gains.

We have already demonstrated that the way this is achieved heavily influences the size of the prize. Oils containing viscosity modifiers for example deliver significantly higher FE than those without, even when formulated to identical viscosities, and the type and quantity of viscosity modifier also play a significant role.

In addition, drive cycle greatly affects lubricant derived FE. For example, an oil formulated to 2.2 cP HTHS (high temperature high shear) viscosity has been shown to deliver around 2% FE relative to an SAE 15W-40 oil in line haul operation. The same oil in low speed/load conditions delivered roughly 3% FE gains, and over 12% FE in idling mode.

Fuel efficient lubricants must deliver engine protection
We have also learned that reducing lubricant viscosity to improve fuel economy performance is not without consequence. As viscosity is lowered, the oil film thickness is reduced and its ability to keep the engine contact surfaces sufficiently apart from each other decreases.

This can lead to accelerated wear, and it really makes little sense to trade engine durability for fuel economy gains. Extensive engine testing with low viscosity lubricants has convinced us that the wear protection requirements of low viscosity oils are very different from those of conventional viscosity oils.

In one test on a standard heavy-duty diesel engine, a 2.6 HTHS viscosity oil formulated with a conventional API CJ-4 additive technology resulted in catastrophic engine failure.

While the exact sequence of events leading to the engine failure could not be established, it is believed that excessive wear in one of the crank assembly components resulted in seizure of the crank shaft, causing it to break and exit from one side of the engine body. However, when the same engine test was run using SAE 15W-40 formulated with the same additive technology an excellent passing performance was observed.

This work made it clear that development of low viscosity lubricants had to be approached with extraordinary care to ensure uncompromised protection against engine wear. A fundamental understanding of the wear processes taking place on various contacting surfaces was seen as a critical enabler for the success of this venture.

Fundamental research programme
The first step was to identify the regions of engine operation and oil formulation where the potential for engine wear is highest.

Fundamental research using advanced radioactive tracer technology enabled Infineum to examine the effects that engine drive cycle, lubricant formulation and in-service ageing of lubricants have on the wear of critical engine components. The study revealed that, amongst other things, soot plays an extremely important role in wear in low viscosity environments.

These insights led Infineum to develop customised bench rigs to study the tribochemical processes taking place in different types of contacts in the engine. The rigs were also used to help screen a variety of new antiwear technologies.

Fuel-economy-inline-chart-1.jpg


At the same time, because soot has been identified as a significant influencer on the amount of wear, we entered into collaborations with leading tribology researchers in the academic world to improve our fundamental understanding of the nature of soot and how it behaves in confined spaces.

Infineum has used the findings from the bench tests and specialist research to develop proprietary engine rigs to validate the technology options in conditions closer to those found in the real world. Further experimentation using these rigs has led to the identification of several useful antiwear technology options, which can minimise the wear sensitivity of low viscosity fluids.

Fuel-economy-inline-chart-3.jpg


Leading edge ultra low viscosity technology
The knowledge that Infineum has gained from its research into FE and wear over the past six years has been put into the development of a leading edge ultra low viscosity FE technology platform. Insight will report on this development in the next article in this fuel economy series.

Infineum aims to use the data from its research to allay potential concerns regarding the use of very low viscosity lubricants, to educate end users about the benefits of advanced FE lubricants and to ensure our products stay ahead of industry needs.
 
Originally Posted By: Phishin
M1. 'Nuff Said

More to say: Pennzoil & Quaker uses Infineum too. OK, now 'Nuff Said.
 
Interesting but only half the picture. They also need to develop new engine technology for Fuel economy designed around the use of thinner oil as well.
 
Originally Posted By: Rand
Interesting but only half the picture. They also need to develop new engine technology for Fuel economy designed around the use of thinner oil as well.


Which is what the Japanese OEM's are seemingly spearheading (and have encountered numerous issues with respect to things like volatility) on the PCMO side.

The focus of this article is on the HDEO side of things. The object was/is to find whether thinner oils can be used in engines that were not necessarily designed for them and still achieve the same type of longevity as previously observed with "staple" lubricants in these HDEO applications like 15w-40 and 5w-40.

Infineum is exploring the results of using thinner lubricants in applications that don't spec them to see the results. And to see if the issues encountered can be worked around from a lubrication standpoint without altering engine design. This would allow entire families of HD engines to be back-spec'd theoretically to run lubricants thinner than what are currently specified. In an industry where extremely high mileage as well as high fuel consumption is commonplace this would be of significant benefit.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Infineum is exploring the results of using thinner lubricants in applications that don't spec them to see the results. And to see if the issues encountered can be worked around from a lubrication standpoint without altering engine design. This would allow entire families of HD engines to be back-spec'd theoretically to run lubricants thinner than what are currently specified. In an industry where extremely high mileage as well as high fuel consumption is commonplace this would be of significant benefit.


Jackie-Gleason-Smokey-and-The-Bandit.jpg
 
Very true fuel cost is by far the largest % of overhead on trucking business(owner operated). Thousands a month.

Just think everytime you see one of those giant anti deer bumpers on a semi its probably costing hundreds? thousands? a year in fuel due to its compromising aerodynamics.

I can see them going to 0/5/10w30 perhaps.. doubtful they can make something like a 0w16 work in a semi engine without modifications to the engine itself.

It makes no sense to go thin if the engines wear out 2x as fast.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Rand


It makes no sense to go thin if the engines wear out 2x as fast.


Exactly, which is the point of Infineum's testing here, to see if they can retain the engine life while going thinner. I'm quite interested to see what they end up figuring out as this article is a couple of years old now, they state it has been in the works for six years, and they have yet to post an update.
 
CAFE stuff has been around a long time and you'd think the deeper research would be much older than 6-8 years ago. I'd think the OEM and oil companies were working this before. I recall the member who is an engine builder saying that thinner was not better in his view. I've always been concerned about film thickness and the hydro wedge with thin oils in more severe duty-shorter term or not.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Rand


It makes no sense to go thin if the engines wear out 2x as fast.


Exactly, which is the point of Infineum's testing here, to see if they can retain the engine life while going thinner. I'm quite interested to see what they end up figuring out as this article is a couple of years old now, they state it has been in the works for six years, and they have yet to post an update.



Maybe they've gone as far as they can with the "thinner" oils.
27.gif
At least for now.
wink.gif
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Exactly, which is the point of Infineum's testing here, to see if they can retain the engine life while going thinner. I'm quite interested to see what they end up figuring out as this article is a couple of years old now, they state it has been in the works for six years, and they have yet to post an update.


Yeah where is the update!?

Even without it, it's pretty compelling that they have a 2.2 HTHSv oil achieving less wear than a 3.5 one.

What's that? xw12 vs xw40?

But I'm sure for some that will still not be enough.

Fuel-economy-inline-chart-3.jpg
 
I know there was some testing going on with the rotella t 10w30 vs the standard 15w40 but this infineum testing is much thinner oil.
 
Fuel-economy-inline-chart-3.jpg


I love the statement on the chart:

"The right choice of antiwear technology can minimise sensitivity to viscosity"

Could be:

"The right choice of knickers can minimise getting them into a wad over sensitivity to viscosity"
 
I like this one

Quote:
Oils containing viscosity modifiers for example deliver significantly higher FE than those without, even when formulated to identical viscosities, and the type and quantity of viscosity modifier also play a significant role.


Considering the most recent thread on this topic I'm not surprised. Also, this is the same story we are hearing from all the major additive companies for both PC-11 and GF-6. Thinner Viscosity, more/better additives....
happy2.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Benito
Even without it, it's pretty compelling that they have a 2.2 HTHSv oil achieving less wear than a 3.5 one.

What's that? xw12 vs xw40?

But I'm sure for some that will still not be enough.


And again, the 3.5 with THAT additive package does better still...

It's not a compelling case for an HTHS of 2.2, but for the additive package.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
It's not a compelling case for an HTHS of 2.2, but for the additive package.


And by extension a low viscosity oil with that additive package instead of a high viscosity oil without it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top