So, are you sayin Valvoline products in Europe and the USA are good or bad?
What's the reason Valvoline uses sodium?
- Thread starter jdavis
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
Well, if you look at the oils using sodium, they're always without moly.
I'd look to that as far as functionality goes...
There was one exception in the PQIA's 2013 testing of 5W30 synths...Schaefer's Supreme 9000.
I remember somebody on here stating that Schaefer does things their own way...megadose of moly to go with that sodium.
http://www.pqiamerica.com/March2013PCMO/schaeffersyn.htm
Well, if you look at the oils using sodium, they're always without moly.
I'd look to that as far as functionality goes...
There was one exception in the PQIA's 2013 testing of 5W30 synths...Schaefer's Supreme 9000.
I remember somebody on here stating that Schaefer does things their own way...megadose of moly to go with that sodium.
http://www.pqiamerica.com/March2013PCMO/schaeffersyn.htm
Hard to argue with Valvoline and the great UOA's posted here at BITOG. I would say Valvoline products are a good oil
Originally Posted By: car51
So, are you sayin Valvoline products in Europe and the USA are good or bad?
I don't think Joe is saying either, but I'm sure he can speak for himself. It's more an investigation of the path they follow to get to the final product, which as they say, performs well in the trenches.
The interesting thing that Joe points out is that it looks like the sodium is a high TBN over-base and not used as a friction reducer. Thanks Joe !!
The question I still have is, so what is the friction reducer ? It's not moly. Maybe it's "various friction modifiers such as sulfurized fatty acids" that was mentioned in the old Ashland patent before.
So, are you sayin Valvoline products in Europe and the USA are good or bad?
I don't think Joe is saying either, but I'm sure he can speak for himself. It's more an investigation of the path they follow to get to the final product, which as they say, performs well in the trenches.
The interesting thing that Joe points out is that it looks like the sodium is a high TBN over-base and not used as a friction reducer. Thanks Joe !!
The question I still have is, so what is the friction reducer ? It's not moly. Maybe it's "various friction modifiers such as sulfurized fatty acids" that was mentioned in the old Ashland patent before.
SR5: thanks for the info mate
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Originally Posted By: SR5
The question I still have is, so what is the friction reducer ? It's not moly. Maybe it's "various friction modifiers such as sulfurized fatty acids" that was mentioned in the old Ashland patent before.
That's what I wonder too. So many high end oils use moly,and moly rich oils always report the smoothest and quietest engines. What could replace moly but be as good without ANY compromises?
The question I still have is, so what is the friction reducer ? It's not moly. Maybe it's "various friction modifiers such as sulfurized fatty acids" that was mentioned in the old Ashland patent before.
That's what I wonder too. So many high end oils use moly,and moly rich oils always report the smoothest and quietest engines. What could replace moly but be as good without ANY compromises?
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Originally Posted By: SR5
The question I still have is, so what is the friction reducer ? It's not moly. Maybe it's "various friction modifiers such as sulfurized fatty acids" that was mentioned in the old Ashland patent before.
That's what I wonder too. So many high end oils use moly,and moly rich oils always report the smoothest and quietest engines. What could replace moly but be as good without ANY compromises?
I hear you, but I find Castrol Magnatec a very smooth oil that produces good UOA's and it has hardly any moly in it.
[Magnatec 5W30 UOA]
It's 7ppm in the above CM 5W30 dexos semi-synthetic
Originally Posted By: SR5
The question I still have is, so what is the friction reducer ? It's not moly. Maybe it's "various friction modifiers such as sulfurized fatty acids" that was mentioned in the old Ashland patent before.
That's what I wonder too. So many high end oils use moly,and moly rich oils always report the smoothest and quietest engines. What could replace moly but be as good without ANY compromises?
I hear you, but I find Castrol Magnatec a very smooth oil that produces good UOA's and it has hardly any moly in it.
[Magnatec 5W30 UOA]
It's 7ppm in the above CM 5W30 dexos semi-synthetic
As far as I know, the commonest friction modifiers used in the US are all some form of ashless fatty acid derivative; not Moly. As these contain no metal, they don't show up on VOA's.
Sulphurised fatty acids (such as Nonyl Phenol Sulphide) were once used widely as lubricant additives but in Europe, they long ago acquired a reputation as seal destroyers so are no longer used.
Sulphurised fatty acids (such as Nonyl Phenol Sulphide) were once used widely as lubricant additives but in Europe, they long ago acquired a reputation as seal destroyers so are no longer used.
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
As far as I know, the commonest friction modifiers used in the US are all some form of ashless fatty acid derivative; not Moly. As these contain no metal, they don't show up on VOA's.
Sulphurised fatty acids (such as Nonyl Phenol Sulphide) were once used widely as lubricant additives but in Europe, they long ago acquired a reputation as seal destroyers so are no longer used.
Thanks Joe, so FM of ashless fatty acid derivative , happy to hear more about these if you have the time and patience.
Ashless makes sense to me, as it's all about low SAPS and protecting the exhaust system now days.
As far as I know, the commonest friction modifiers used in the US are all some form of ashless fatty acid derivative; not Moly. As these contain no metal, they don't show up on VOA's.
Sulphurised fatty acids (such as Nonyl Phenol Sulphide) were once used widely as lubricant additives but in Europe, they long ago acquired a reputation as seal destroyers so are no longer used.
Thanks Joe, so FM of ashless fatty acid derivative , happy to hear more about these if you have the time and patience.
Ashless makes sense to me, as it's all about low SAPS and protecting the exhaust system now days.
Originally Posted By: jdavis
I don't notice many oils using sodium, is it for cost reasons that Valvoline uses it? I was looking over some UOA's from different labs and some actually classify sodium as a contaminant..
Nearly all anti freeze mixes contain Sodium, which is why UOA fans tend to avoid oils that use it, as it can make the results look like a HG or oil cooler failure.
Sodium compounds (There are 3 different ones used as an oil additive) are classed as co-detergents, BUT just like Calcium sulphonate they also have an anti corrosive effect. Just to confuse things further one of the Na compounds does have a minor effect in AW terms, BUT it will not replace Moly which is a friction modifier.
Magnesium sulphonate is a much better alternative to Calcium sulphonate as a detergent and dispersant additive. It lasts longer BUT the best oils for diesel engines should have mostly Calcium based detergents. If you add up the Ca and Mg figures in a VOA it should total at least 2500 ppm to be a good cleaner and suitable for longish OCI's.
I don't notice many oils using sodium, is it for cost reasons that Valvoline uses it? I was looking over some UOA's from different labs and some actually classify sodium as a contaminant..
Nearly all anti freeze mixes contain Sodium, which is why UOA fans tend to avoid oils that use it, as it can make the results look like a HG or oil cooler failure.
Sodium compounds (There are 3 different ones used as an oil additive) are classed as co-detergents, BUT just like Calcium sulphonate they also have an anti corrosive effect. Just to confuse things further one of the Na compounds does have a minor effect in AW terms, BUT it will not replace Moly which is a friction modifier.
Magnesium sulphonate is a much better alternative to Calcium sulphonate as a detergent and dispersant additive. It lasts longer BUT the best oils for diesel engines should have mostly Calcium based detergents. If you add up the Ca and Mg figures in a VOA it should total at least 2500 ppm to be a good cleaner and suitable for longish OCI's.
Last edited:
SR5,
Regarding fatty acid FMs, you will find loads of references on t'internet on Glycerol Mono-Oleate (GMO). It's an ester of Oleic Acid and Glycerol (the most basic polyol you can get). It's cheap and it works so it's widely used.
UltrafanUK,
Wow! Someone else who rates Mg Sulphonate! I thought it was just me (although in fairness, I only liked it because it was about the cheapest detergent I could lay my hands on in terms of cost per unit of TBN).
Yes, fully agree that all detergents do anti-rust especially on the Ball Rust Test (but if memory serves, wasn't Mg always best on the old Seq. IID?)
When you say 'one of three' do you mean sodium sulphonates, phenates and salicylates or something else?? I did wonder for a time if the sodium in Valoline's oils was sodium dialkyl dithio carbamate (an anologue of MoDDTC). I found several lube add patent references to it but only as an intermediate to making something else with the Na expelled.
Regarding fatty acid FMs, you will find loads of references on t'internet on Glycerol Mono-Oleate (GMO). It's an ester of Oleic Acid and Glycerol (the most basic polyol you can get). It's cheap and it works so it's widely used.
UltrafanUK,
Wow! Someone else who rates Mg Sulphonate! I thought it was just me (although in fairness, I only liked it because it was about the cheapest detergent I could lay my hands on in terms of cost per unit of TBN).
Yes, fully agree that all detergents do anti-rust especially on the Ball Rust Test (but if memory serves, wasn't Mg always best on the old Seq. IID?)
When you say 'one of three' do you mean sodium sulphonates, phenates and salicylates or something else?? I did wonder for a time if the sodium in Valoline's oils was sodium dialkyl dithio carbamate (an anologue of MoDDTC). I found several lube add patent references to it but only as an intermediate to making something else with the Na expelled.
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
SR5,
Regarding fatty acid FMs, you will find loads of references on t'internet on Glycerol Mono-Oleate (GMO). It's an ester of Oleic Acid and Glycerol (the most basic polyol you can get). It's cheap and it works so it's widely used.
Thanks mate, I'll look them up.
SR5,
Regarding fatty acid FMs, you will find loads of references on t'internet on Glycerol Mono-Oleate (GMO). It's an ester of Oleic Acid and Glycerol (the most basic polyol you can get). It's cheap and it works so it's widely used.
Thanks mate, I'll look them up.
SR5,
It's probably worth mentioning that fatty acids are pretty much ubiquitous in the lubricant additive industry as they are the primary means to get stuff that doesn't want to dissolve in oil, to be oil soluble.
Take detergents for example. We talk about calcium, magnesium and sodium sulphonates, phenates, salicylates and calixerates but the stuff that does most of the work is simple, inorganic and very oil insoluble calcium carbonate (chalk), magnesium carbonate (magnesia) and sodium carbonate (washing soda). Sulphonates and the like have long chain alkyl groups as part of their molecular structure and these enable the formation of colloids which keep the inorganic stuff suspended in oil.
Zincs, Moly's, Titanium, Copper, Tungsten, etc are all linked to fatty acids or several shorter alkyl groups to make them oil soluble.
Hope that helps...
It's probably worth mentioning that fatty acids are pretty much ubiquitous in the lubricant additive industry as they are the primary means to get stuff that doesn't want to dissolve in oil, to be oil soluble.
Take detergents for example. We talk about calcium, magnesium and sodium sulphonates, phenates, salicylates and calixerates but the stuff that does most of the work is simple, inorganic and very oil insoluble calcium carbonate (chalk), magnesium carbonate (magnesia) and sodium carbonate (washing soda). Sulphonates and the like have long chain alkyl groups as part of their molecular structure and these enable the formation of colloids which keep the inorganic stuff suspended in oil.
Zincs, Moly's, Titanium, Copper, Tungsten, etc are all linked to fatty acids or several shorter alkyl groups to make them oil soluble.
Hope that helps...
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
SR5,
It's probably worth mentioning that fatty acids are pretty much ubiquitous in the lubricant additive industry as they are the primary means to get stuff that doesn't want to dissolve in oil, to be oil soluble.
Take detergents for example. We talk about calcium, magnesium and sodium sulphonates, phenates, salicylates and calixerates but the stuff that does most of the work is simple, inorganic and very oil insoluble calcium carbonate (chalk), magnesium carbonate (magnesia) and sodium carbonate (washing soda). Sulphonates and the like have long chain alkyl groups as part of their molecular structure and these enable the formation of colloids which keep the inorganic stuff suspended in oil.
Zincs, Moly's, Titanium, Copper, Tungsten, etc are all linked to fatty acids or several shorter alkyl groups to make them oil soluble.
Hope that helps...
Yes it does, cheers mate.
Have a good weekend.
SR5,
It's probably worth mentioning that fatty acids are pretty much ubiquitous in the lubricant additive industry as they are the primary means to get stuff that doesn't want to dissolve in oil, to be oil soluble.
Take detergents for example. We talk about calcium, magnesium and sodium sulphonates, phenates, salicylates and calixerates but the stuff that does most of the work is simple, inorganic and very oil insoluble calcium carbonate (chalk), magnesium carbonate (magnesia) and sodium carbonate (washing soda). Sulphonates and the like have long chain alkyl groups as part of their molecular structure and these enable the formation of colloids which keep the inorganic stuff suspended in oil.
Zincs, Moly's, Titanium, Copper, Tungsten, etc are all linked to fatty acids or several shorter alkyl groups to make them oil soluble.
Hope that helps...
Yes it does, cheers mate.
Have a good weekend.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
So what I wonder now,what works better no holds barred as anti wear with absolutely no compromises? Moly or the fatty acids?
Originally Posted By: UltrafanUK
Magnesium sulphonate is a much better alternative to Calcium sulphonate as a detergent and dispersant additive. It lasts longer BUT the best oils for diesel engines should have mostly Calcium based detergents. If you add up the Ca and Mg figures in a VOA it should total at least 2500 ppm to be a good cleaner and suitable for longish OCI's.
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
It will be interesting to see if this kind of thing survives the transition to GF-6.
Thanks to all for their input. Those patents Joe pulled on the tri-detergent system were really interesting! I expect this will all be moot though by GF-6 because I don't think you will see either Calcium or Sodium based detergents in GF-6 formulations. Like I said before, I've only ever seen them together (Ca/Na or Ca/Mg/Na combinations), so with Calcium detergents being targeted for reducing LSPI, I would expect that the Na detergents will also go with them. Who knows - if Ca is bad for LSPI, than Na might be worse!
One way we will be able to tell is when the new Dexos1 oils finally hit the shelves and someone does a VOA. The 2015 Dexos spec has an LSPI test in it and is billed in some circles as a precursor to what the packages will look like for GF-6. If I were a betting man, Magnesium wins out as the detergent of choice for the future.
Magnesium sulphonate is a much better alternative to Calcium sulphonate as a detergent and dispersant additive. It lasts longer BUT the best oils for diesel engines should have mostly Calcium based detergents. If you add up the Ca and Mg figures in a VOA it should total at least 2500 ppm to be a good cleaner and suitable for longish OCI's.
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
It will be interesting to see if this kind of thing survives the transition to GF-6.
Thanks to all for their input. Those patents Joe pulled on the tri-detergent system were really interesting! I expect this will all be moot though by GF-6 because I don't think you will see either Calcium or Sodium based detergents in GF-6 formulations. Like I said before, I've only ever seen them together (Ca/Na or Ca/Mg/Na combinations), so with Calcium detergents being targeted for reducing LSPI, I would expect that the Na detergents will also go with them. Who knows - if Ca is bad for LSPI, than Na might be worse!
One way we will be able to tell is when the new Dexos1 oils finally hit the shelves and someone does a VOA. The 2015 Dexos spec has an LSPI test in it and is billed in some circles as a precursor to what the packages will look like for GF-6. If I were a betting man, Magnesium wins out as the detergent of choice for the future.
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
So what I wonder now,what works better no holds barred as anti wear with absolutely no compromises? Moly or the fatty acids?
They work differently. Moly generally activates as oxidation occurs, and are predominantly active under boundary conditions. Fatty acids (Organic FM's) are also active under boundary conditions but also function in the mixed regime. Generally they are more likely to be used together to cover off friction reduction over a range of conditions.
Moly also forms layers on top of ZDDP antiwear films, as there is a synergistic relationship there that can be exploited to provide better protection across a range of conditions. Incidentally, when combined with more stable zddp you can actually reduce the level of zddp and maintain similar wear performance in standardized testing. (MoDTC + ZDDP is not the only factor at work here, because there are other things you can do to increase the tenacity of the tribolayer, but this is one of the things that contributes to the ability to have lower phos levels than previous API categories)
I have seen FM/AW cocktails that contain a mixture of fatty acids, phosphorus and sulphur containing compounds that work just as well as others that have fatty acids, moly and phosphorus containing compounds. It all depends on your preference, metallurgy, friction materials, competing additives and concentrations that you can afford.
So what I wonder now,what works better no holds barred as anti wear with absolutely no compromises? Moly or the fatty acids?
They work differently. Moly generally activates as oxidation occurs, and are predominantly active under boundary conditions. Fatty acids (Organic FM's) are also active under boundary conditions but also function in the mixed regime. Generally they are more likely to be used together to cover off friction reduction over a range of conditions.
Moly also forms layers on top of ZDDP antiwear films, as there is a synergistic relationship there that can be exploited to provide better protection across a range of conditions. Incidentally, when combined with more stable zddp you can actually reduce the level of zddp and maintain similar wear performance in standardized testing. (MoDTC + ZDDP is not the only factor at work here, because there are other things you can do to increase the tenacity of the tribolayer, but this is one of the things that contributes to the ability to have lower phos levels than previous API categories)
I have seen FM/AW cocktails that contain a mixture of fatty acids, phosphorus and sulphur containing compounds that work just as well as others that have fatty acids, moly and phosphorus containing compounds. It all depends on your preference, metallurgy, friction materials, competing additives and concentrations that you can afford.
Last edited:
I predict that the whole GF-6/LSPI/Ca vs Mg thing is going to get very, very messy...
First off, if they ever finalise this LSPI test and like all the R&D studies, it says, Ca is a no-go, then you immediately trigger a global Mg Sulphonate supply crisis. The industry metal on the ground was predominantly designed and built to make Ca detergents. In theory, a detergent plant can be flipped (I seem to recall several Mg plants were converted to make Ca in the very early '80s) but engineering-wise, it's probably trickier than you think. I may be wrong, but my recollection is that not all of the major AddCo's have Mg in-house so what do they do?
Second, if GF-6 does end up predominantly Mg-based, how on Earth can you honestly make the 'backwards compatibility' argument than underpins the almost overnight switch in commercial oils-on-shelves that's always happened in the US? You probably need to go back several decades to find a mainstream US PCMO that's based on Mg! I'm personally a big fan of Mg but it's not without it's own historical baggage (Ford Tornado bore glazing, water sensitivity and Banned In Japan to name a few). Backwards compatibility should already be a major concern because of the way the new Seq IIIH test has been frigged to stop oil evaporative loss. How can people say this test equates to the old Seq IIIG with mineral oils when it's clear as day that it's a far easier test to pass?
Third, if the US market goes Mg, then expect a huge 'Why on earth are we doing this backlash?'. LSPI is all about broken piston lands on turbocharged direct injection engines. Okay, every knows there are instances of this but the risks of this happening are miniscule. These engines are with us NOW in huge numbers and almost all of them are running today on Ca-based oils. Where are the piled up corpses of dead engines to justify such a radical shift in oil formulation?
I'm watching the unfolding scene with eager anticipation!
First off, if they ever finalise this LSPI test and like all the R&D studies, it says, Ca is a no-go, then you immediately trigger a global Mg Sulphonate supply crisis. The industry metal on the ground was predominantly designed and built to make Ca detergents. In theory, a detergent plant can be flipped (I seem to recall several Mg plants were converted to make Ca in the very early '80s) but engineering-wise, it's probably trickier than you think. I may be wrong, but my recollection is that not all of the major AddCo's have Mg in-house so what do they do?
Second, if GF-6 does end up predominantly Mg-based, how on Earth can you honestly make the 'backwards compatibility' argument than underpins the almost overnight switch in commercial oils-on-shelves that's always happened in the US? You probably need to go back several decades to find a mainstream US PCMO that's based on Mg! I'm personally a big fan of Mg but it's not without it's own historical baggage (Ford Tornado bore glazing, water sensitivity and Banned In Japan to name a few). Backwards compatibility should already be a major concern because of the way the new Seq IIIH test has been frigged to stop oil evaporative loss. How can people say this test equates to the old Seq IIIG with mineral oils when it's clear as day that it's a far easier test to pass?
Third, if the US market goes Mg, then expect a huge 'Why on earth are we doing this backlash?'. LSPI is all about broken piston lands on turbocharged direct injection engines. Okay, every knows there are instances of this but the risks of this happening are miniscule. These engines are with us NOW in huge numbers and almost all of them are running today on Ca-based oils. Where are the piled up corpses of dead engines to justify such a radical shift in oil formulation?
I'm watching the unfolding scene with eager anticipation!
Last edited:
It's already beginning....
take a look at this VOA on the new Rotella 5W40... note the Magnesium and Calcium levels
This isn't PCMO but T6 may be setting up to be SN/SP compatible. I think if the Addco is smart they would have already started buying up Mg supply.
take a look at this VOA on the new Rotella 5W40... note the Magnesium and Calcium levels
This isn't PCMO but T6 may be setting up to be SN/SP compatible. I think if the Addco is smart they would have already started buying up Mg supply.
- Status
