Reduction in wear with every new batch of API oil?

[The motor guy]

I see things like oh there is a 40% reduction in wear, bla bla bla. Remember when Royal Purple got sued because they claimed an 80 percent reduction in wear? Unless they're just slowly putting in more modern anti wear additives. Opinions?

 

[Shannow]

Most of the claims that I've seen are "40% less wear", with the qualifier, in tiny writing "than the industry standard wear test".

By definition, every licenced oil MUST offer less wear than the standard, and with batch to batch variations, the blender will target some percentage of the maximum allowable....some of the Castrol guys on the board indicated that 40% of the max allowable was their actual target.

So it's just advertising fluff...factual, but inconsequential.

 

[SonofJoe]

I've never ever thought about it but I suspect the answer is that over decades, real wear has increased, not decreased. I'll explain...

My first car used a 20W50. The car I drive today uses a 0W20. Viscosity, in which ever form you measure it, ISN'T the sole determinant of wear but neither is it insignificant. The evidence that thin oils wear more than thick ones is actually enshrined in the API & ACEA viscosity read-across tables for wear tests. If they believe it, it's probably right.

At the same time, levels of ZDDP in oils has been progressively reduced. ZDDP ISN'T the sole determinant of wear but is one of the major ones and again and it's not insignificant. The trend to low levels if ZDDP was more pronounced, more quickly in the US but Europe is fast catching up now.

And then there's the shift in base oil type. Again in my lifetime we've seen a shift from the almost ubiquitous use of Group I to the point where Group I is fast becoming extinct; replaced by Group II & III (and to a lesser extent Group IV/V). Does removing Sulphur (and to a lesser extent Nitrogen) impact on wear. I don't know but I suspect it does. ZDDP contains sulphur. Who's to say that sulphur doesn't impact on the anti-wear process?

Finally I'd point to the thing that's happened over the decades that you don't see on UOA's which is the increase use of Ashless Dispersant in oils (for better piston cleanliness and soot control). Most formulators know that Ashless can complex with ZDDP. Does this tie-up impact on the effectiveness of ZDDP? I don't know but directionally I suspect it does.

Put all of this together and you could logically conclude that over the decades the trend is one of worsening wear in real-life. The API, ACEA and the OEMs circumvent this simply by saying 'it meets the standard' (as defined by some test or other). But who sets the standard and decides whether it's acceptable? They do of course!!

 

[Linctex]

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe

Put all of this together and you could logically conclude that over the decades the trend is one of worsening wear in real-life.


I dunno... The first engine I ever rebuilt 100% (bored .030, new pistons, etc.) back in 1985 was a '73 Chevy 350 engine with less than 150,000 miles on it.

.030" BARELY cleaned it up, the ridge was that deep (.012" each side). This engine was completely wore out before a rebuild. All new valve guides needed, too.

Fast forward 32 years, and I'm driving a F150 with a 4.6 and over 140,000 miles. Looking in the oil fill cap hole, the engine is spotless inside. It doesn't burn a drop of oil in 4,000 miles. It has been run on 5W-20 it's entire life.

I know these are JUST two examples, but I think the evidence is there to support the fact that it's NOT just the new oils, but new everything - new metallurgy, new manufacturing techniques, better engine management (EFI, knock sensors, etc.).

However, If I rebuild an engine from the early 70's today and run it on modern oils, will it last just as long? (using 10W-30, or 15W-40, etc. etc.)

 

[Shannow]

Great insights.

Having pulled apart a few '70s engines, the bore ridge was always greatest in the coldest cylinders, and especially so if the idjit former owner pulled the thermostat (my worst pull apart had massive valve guide wear to go with the progressively diminishing ridges F-R due to a thermostat removal)

Cooling systems got worked out, faster warmup, and less operation with AW additives out of the equation. Injection created less bore washing to boot.

Personally, I think that a 1970s engine run, as it came from the factory on today's oils would fare better, but not much.

 

[SonofJoe]

It's indisputable that engine tech has got better over the decades and yes, a modern engine would be better than an old engine on wear (especially that lump of ancient garbage I had in my first 1100!).

However, the OP's specific question was about oil and if you narrowly ask the question, are modern oils better on wear performance than old oils, then the answer is no way as clear cut as it is with engine tech in general.

I'm quite okay with saying that modern oils are way more oxidatively stable than old oils. Likewise I accept that they have far less propensity to dump out crud and are far better at dealing with dumped out crud if it did dump crud (which it won't). But wear?..especially over the entire life time of the engine?..I wouldn't be too sure...

 

[SuperSalad]

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe

At the same time, levels of ZDDP in oils has been progressively reduced. ZDDP ISN'T the sole determinant of wear but is one of the major ones and again and it's not insignificant. The trend to low levels if ZDDP was more pronounced, more quickly in the US but Europe is fast catching up now.

You do know that ZDDP is not the only anti-wear additive right? There are other additives to reduce wear without increasing phosphorus content which is controlled by the API.

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe

Put all of this together and you could logically conclude that over the decades the trend is one of worsening wear in real-life. The API, ACEA and the OEMs circumvent this simply by saying 'it meets the standard' (as defined by some test or other). But who sets the standard and decides whether it's acceptable? They do of course!!

That "logical conclusion" is reliant on the exclusion of machinery advancements of the automotive industry at large. If you were to take all of those points and assume they were being applied to the previous generations of machines, it might be valid. However, automobiles are more advanced than they were in the past and with all of those advancements in engine/transmission design, the lubricants have advanced equally to compensate accordingly. If that were not true then engines and transmissions would be wearing out faster now then they did in the past. Maybe that is happening, but I haven't seen anything to indicate it as a significant issue.

 

[SuperSalad]

Originally Posted By: motor_oil_madman
I see things like oh there is a 40% reduction in wear, bla bla bla. Remember when Royal Purple got sued because they claimed an 80 percent reduction in wear? Unless they're just slowly putting in more modern anti wear additives. Opinions?

Yes new antiwear additives are being developed quite often. They aren't all great, but technology is constantly advancing.

Anything you see as a customer is guaranteed to be advertising and I would advise remaining skeptical of claims that seem really impressive until vetted.

 

[09_GXP]

Here's a good link that gives a brief description of the IVA wear test that is usually mentioned in these claims. For this discussion it is interesting to note that for GF-3 oils 120um was the max wear allowed which was reduced to 90um in GF-4 and GF-5.

IVA Wear Test

 

[SonofJoe]

Do I know that there are more anti-wear additives than just ZDDP and that new P-free ones are being developed all the time?

Yes and yes. Moly is a good anti-wear additive but it's use isn't anything like as universal as ZDDP. It was a shoe-in additive for SL Group I oils (as an antioxidant, not as anti-wear) but as Group I oils have disappeared, the case for using Moly in Group II/III/IV oils is far less clear cut and it's use ranges from a lot (Japan) to none at all. And regarding all these new P-free anti-wear additives, I'd bet good money that 99% of them don't make it past the patent stage and the 1% that does make it to commercialisation are so expensive that they only get used in very expensive top-tier oils rather and the 99% of oils ordinary mortals use. This picture you paint of 'advancing lubrication technology' is true is some respects (oxidation, sludge, soot control, fuel economy) but in the specific case of engine wear, it just a picture I recognise beyond the vacuous fluff of oil marketing.

And I'm, glad someone raised the subject of Sequence IVA test. This is the industry standard test you need to pass to get an API approval. So let's be clear; it's a low temperature cam wear test. It's not a bearing wear test or a liner wear test or a ring wear test. Are these things not important then? And the test runs for 100 hours at relatively low speed. My little Kia had a little clock that records engine-on time and I worked out it was doing something like 350 hours of engine-on time between oil changes. Bit of a disparity that don't you think, especially when you consider that you can easily do ten OCI's (or 3500 hours of engine-on time) over a decade. Oh, and did I mention that the IVA hardware dates back to 1994. I don't in principle have a problem with that but when an engine gets this old, parts become scarce and their quality goes out of the window. Yet this is how we certify whether the wear performance of an oil is acceptable or not? Do you see where I'm going on this??

 

[SonofJoe]

...and NOT the 99% of oils ordinary mortals use.

...it's just NOT a picture I recognise beyond the vacuous fluff of oil marketing


Sorry. Edit time had run out by the time I spotted these typos.

 

[claluja]

Thanks for the insight SonofJoe. Seems like Ford would agree with you.

 

[Solarent]

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe

And I'm, glad someone raised the subject of Sequence IVA test. This is the industry standard test you need to pass to get an API approval. So let's be clear; it's a low temperature cam wear test. It's not a bearing wear test or a liner wear test or a ring wear test. Are these things not important then? And the test runs for 100 hours at relatively low speed. My little Kia had a little clock that records engine-on time and I worked out it was doing something like 350 hours of engine-on time between oil changes. Bit of a disparity that don't you think, especially when you consider that you can easily do ten OCI's (or 3500 hours of engine-on time) over a decade. Oh, and did I mention that the IVA hardware dates back to 1994. I don't in principle have a problem with that but when an engine gets this old, parts become scarce and their quality goes out of the window. Yet this is how we certify whether the wear performance of an oil is acceptable or not? Do you see where I'm going on this??



I loved this response - probably my biggest complaint with the API system is a) how old the hardware and test environments are, which brings to question some of their relevance and b) how slow they are to develop/accept new test methods.

Just look at GF-6. Something like 9 new engine tests, and the time it takes to develop, standardize and update those tests are ridiculous. AND most of those tests are based on compromises between the OEMs (which is, like impossible to orchestrate) There should be an ongoing effort to continually update and renew testing. There should be tests that are more than just pass/fail that don't cherry pick wear but that allow you actually differentiate the oil. There should be more incentive to get the 99% into commercial use - although I think that number is a little lower than that. And you wonder the average non-BITOG member can't be bothered to educate themselves and choose the best oil for their individual circumstances!?!

/end rant.

 

[OVERKILL]

Solarent and SonofJoe what are your thoughts regarding the ACEA protocols in comparison?

 

[Solarent]

Here's what I like about ACEA:

• They have different categories for different levels of performance (ie Extended Drain, Low SAPS etc).
• The categories are updated on a routine schedule (we just had an update in December for 2016)

Here's what I don't like:

• Most people don't understand what all the nomenclature means and labeling practices can be confusing
• Because they are evergreen specifications, when upgrades are made, it's harder to understand what changed
• They similar issues upgrading to the API with upgrading tests
• Most European OEMs issue their own specifications as well, which also creates confusion to the consumer.