Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

This is how you get my business.

 

Biosynthetic® Motor Oil 5W-30

 

IMG_0681.thumb.JPG.bdfa07e6583bacac0ef3d94a03d8e088.JPG

 

Let me know what is in that bottle I'm pouring into my motor and I will!

😉

 

Figure 27.25 from the previous link provided (credit) shows a few points of interest.

 

Estolides are NOT Group III+++ fluids. No such thing. It ends at Group III+. 

 

Like any other ester they are Group V and in this case a large part of the product is an Estolide ester. Which means the esters made come from natural oils  such as Soya and Castor Bean and not chemical feed stocks from crude refining such as ethane/ethylene.

 

Conformation that the mineral portion is a Group III is a plus as is the very low percent of VIM.

Infineum is a joint venture of Exxon/Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell. Very top shelf....

 

The formula Biosynthetic received it's API certification on. This is good news. If they change the formula they would have to resubmit the testing and that cost more than this start up wishes to speed at present. In fact the reason they went with a "off the self' add package. That is to assure first pass certification. @customboss put up a video on this not long ago.  

 

 

  • Like 1
Posted

Interesting because when I first queried them the petroleum base was GRP II+. So they must have improved it.  Thanks for sharing. I THINK the video said it was GRP II+ from Chevron world of hydrocracked bases oils....LOL  I can't hear so I might have misheard. 

Posted
1 hour ago, customboss said:

Interesting because when I first queried them the petroleum base was GRP II+. So they must have improved it.  Thanks for sharing. I THINK the video said it was GRP II+ from Chevron world of hydrocracked bases oils....LOL  I can't hear so I might have misheard. 

 

If you can find that video can you repost it here please? 

Posted
23 hours ago, customboss said:

Interesting because when I first queried them the petroleum base was GRP II+. So they must have improved it.  Thanks for sharing. I THINK the video said it was GRP II+ from Chevron world of hydrocracked bases oils....LOL  I can't hear so I might have misheard. 

I misheard because I can't hear.  Just being careful not to mislead.....LOL  

  • Thanks 1
Posted

At $10 a quart I will use Amsoil OE. 

  • Like 3
Posted

Found it.......

 

Hydrocarbons from Plants

 

One of the players in this area is Novvi, whose NovaSpec products meet the APIs Group III criteria and are produced from sugarcane cellulose. As they are biodegradable, use of these hydrocarbons in the appropriate amounts allows formulators to produce environmentally acceptable lubricants that meet the specifications for hydraulic environmental polyalphaolefins and related products, according to ASTM D15380. (Novvi did not respond to requests for comments at the time of publication.)

 

https://www.lubesngreases.com/magazine-emea/3/a-new-way-forward/

Posted

 

My dog has four limbs, brown eyes and hair. So does my son. Can I conclude my dog is my son?

 :crackup: 

 

Lubes and Greases is WRONG. The criteria for a Group III starts with being derived from a MINERAL OIL. It isn't. It is derived from plant oils. Oh it may meet the API specs for sulfur, minimum saturation and viscosity index but it does not and can not meet the CRITERIA. Lubes and Grease is not the organization who is doing the certifications nor making the rules. Neither is BT or RLI or EVOLVE or some quality lab or Tribologist or  anyone else. The API is the standard. Writes the standards and no one gets a Cert without their approval with REQUIRES conformity to the RULES. Some may not like it but some people don't like allot of things they have little say in. Absent such finality you are left with chaos. 

 

POA's also meet the specs for a Group III and yet they are not a Group III. Why? Not a mineral oil based material and synthetically produced. 

 

Review API doc 1509  Appendix E below:

 

API Base Oil Categories

 

Esters, ALL Esters are Group V

 

Thought we had the nails in this coffin lid hammered down

🤔

 

 

 

  • Haha 1
Posted

Why I'm interested in Estolides. A personal note. 

 

Aniline point and oxidative/hydrolytic degradation resistance. But mostly Aniline point. 

 

PCMO's contain detergents but those Adpack chemistries can only inhibit deposits. They can not clean existing deposits. Detergents are not solvents. Estolides are HUGE solvents. The lower the aniline point of the finished product the better it's solvency. Aniline point is blendable. Biosynthetic is 35% Estolide base oil. About double the the polyol ester content of Red Line at half the aniline point. Major upgrade in solvency. 

 

A motor oil detergent is a surfactant that envelopes a particle and the dispersant package keeps those particles from finding each other preventing precipitation as sludge. The base oil has a resistance to those particles forming and antioxidants to increase that tendency/ability. Each has limits of saturation that once exceeded leave behind deposits that are hard to remove. 

 

A solvent dissolves those particles into solution even after they have amalgamated and precipitated. It too has a limit of saturation and why we change oil even with the best chemistries. Dilution trumps them all. 😉

 

But there is a practical $$$$ limit. In problem motors such as the GM 2.4 this ability to clean and not just prevent is HUGE. Same principle used in CUMMINS Restore. I don't know how they compare in finished aniline point but it matters not if I can no longer source a steady supply of Restore. 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Grumpy Bear said:

 

My dog has four limbs, brown eyes and hair. So does my son. Can I conclude my dog is my son?

 :crackup: 

 

Lubes and Greases is WRONG. The criteria for a Group III starts with being derived from a MINERAL OIL. It isn't. It is derived from plant oils. Oh it may meet the API specs for sulfur, minimum saturation and viscosity index but it does not and can not meet the CRITERIA. Lubes and Grease is not the organization who is doing the certifications nor making the rules. Neither is BT or RLI or EVOLVE or some quality lab or Tribologist or  anyone else. The API is the standard. Writes the standards and no one gets a Cert without their approval with REQUIRES conformity to the RULES. Some may not like it but some people don't like allot of things they have little say in. Absent such finality you are left with chaos. 

 

POA's also meet the specs for a Group III and yet they are not a Group III. Why? Not a mineral oil based material and synthetically produced. 

 

Review API doc 1509  Appendix E below:

 

API Base Oil Categories

 

Esters, ALL Esters are Group V

 

Thought we had the nails in this coffin lid hammered down

🤔

 

 

 

WE! who’s we kimosabe? 🤩

Youz.  
🤪

All in good fun of course. 
 

Night. 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Any joy with this truck seems to be short-lived.   The CEL for P0172 ("bank 1" too rich) is now "intermittent".   I'm not sure where to check, or re-check, and my energy to keep chasing problems with junk is wearing thin. The P0172 seems to set as I'm coming to a stop, completely off the throttle, when fully warm. At least, that's what it's done the 3? times it's set.   Everything appears normal on the scanner EXCEPT long term fuel trim. There's only one bank on this vehicle because it's an OBD 1.5 with only one upstream O2 sensor. At idle, it's around -16.4% and will dip to -18% occasionally at idle or off-throttle. LTFT approaches 0 when throttle is held at 2500rpm. Short term appears normal, much closer to zero all the time. The LTFT tells me the engine is running rich at idle but compensating at higher load. But, why?   The EVAP purge valve doesn't appear to be leaking/sucking fuel vapor continuously. Is it sticking just as I come to a stop and the engine is choking on fuel vapor and sets the P0172? But that doesn't explain the persistently negative LTFT. Disconnecting the purge valve doesn't seem to make any difference.   I suppose that leaves another dang issue with the fuel injector. A leaking fuel pressure regulator, a new leak in the spider, or a leaking fuel injector/poppet valve I didn't see, or a small crack in one of the spider legs.   The vacuum line leading to the fuel pressure regulator doesn't have raw fuel in it. It doesn't even smell like fuel when it's pulled off, not until you suck air through it, then you can tell it leads to a fuel component. I'd consider that normal? Nothing is signaling this is a FPR issue from the outside, at least.   The oil smells like fuel but it's not building volume. I've noticed most oil in most engines smells like fuel to some degree so it's hard to say if the smell is an issue or not. Or if the engine just still smells like fuel because the crankcase was full of it a few hundred miles ago. But it's been changed twice since that original issue of the leaking fuel line dumping fuel into the intake.   Patience is running very thin. Every win seems to be accompanied by two steps backwards, or another issue that leads to removing at least the top half of the intake manifold. Enough! LOL
    • First off you mentioned "Toyo Says" and then gave the pressures 45/50, was this some person at the tire shop that pulled those numbers out of his head ?   Now of course I can't know your exact axle weights front and rear, however I have much the same pickup as yourself other than not knowing your starting weight as per the pounds the truck rolled out of the factory at due to the options yours did or didn't come with or what you have added beyond the extra tire weight. The correct way to know 100% where a person is at is by weighing each axle with the typical weight the vehicle is driven with and that means taking into account passengers and making sure you figure in a full tank of fuel and a little grace for whatever you may put in the bed "groceries" !    I am looking at and not that it really matters as all the tire companies use the same charts anyway, but I am looking at the comprehensive Toyo tire chart in the section that your tire falls under and I know it sounds confusing but your tire is not an LT metric tire like your factory tire but instead because its a standard inch measured tire its under a different category called an LT floatation series tire. That makes a difference as LT metric tires they don't want to see run below 35 psi at highway speed where as with the LT floatation series it can be run down to 25 psi on the highway as long as the weight on the said size of tire is agreeable with or less than that minimum 25 psi. It blows many people away that how is this physically possible, an empty truck for one thing and larger tires with the same size wheel diameter have a lot more air volume so they can carry the same weight as the smaller tire with less air pressure.    So my truck, I have the stock 275/65R20 wheels and tires and I have a bit of weight in the box with a bak flip cover and a rubber bed mat and some tools and spare gas. The front of my gas truck weighs a bit more than some trucks of the similar spec due to double batteries and alternators. However with full fuel and just me in the truck I am weighted such that I can run 40 front and 35 rear and so that is what I have done since day one.    If I base your truck at or slightly below the weight of my truck, in theory with your tires going by the tire chart you might be right around a minimum of 30 pounds front and 25 pounds rear. Of course that would hit pretty much minimum cold inflation pressure one could run with that tire size and a near empty truck. If you have access to an accurate weigh scale to do individual front and rear axle weights I would suggest you do that and make sure your topped up with fuel and whatever else in the truck before you weigh it and then you will have a great starting point to work off of and figure out what your bare minimum pressures are you can safely run. If you do much in the way of hot weather high speed driving, bumping up a bit for a safety margin is never a bad idea but just depends on what type of driving you do. I will include the Toyo chart and the floatation series sizes start on page 31. Without a doubt at these pressures I am speculating at minimum wise for your truck, it would most certainly ride very different then it did when you were using 55 lb front and rear.     https://www.toyotires.com/media/pxcjubjs/application_of_load_inflation_tables_20200723.pdf
    • Take an automotive stethoscope to the vacuum pump. Iirc those tick as well. 
    • This landing is worse than most. Patchy blacktop with washouts, soft gravel/sand at bottom that washes out with every heavy rain. I tell everyone to put it in 4WD. A lot of them think they can pull out their trailer in 2WD. They end up digging a hole and then putting it in 4WD.  The lake is a pristine lake and has a lot of money on it. There are several wake boats and lot of large tritoons. The people with the money don't want it improved because they don't want more traffic.    Boat Landing 1.jfif Boat Landing 2.jfif Boat Landing 3.jfif
    • How wide are your rims?   Toyo specs 8.5-10.0-11.0 inches. My thought would be rim might be pulling the tire inwards creating a center that is more pronounced.    I also noticed that the spec sheet says max 65psi. So you could be right lowering the pressure to ~40 psi. 
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...