OCI, not when but why?

[Grumpy Bear]

2 hours ago, KARNUT said:

Of course life of a vehicle or equipment could be interpreted on different levels. Most people fit into got to have it mode when it comes to vehicles. 100K miles is lifetime to them.

 

And there it is. I've mentioned a coworker in Texas that bought a new 76 Monte Carlo and NEVER changed oil or even the break in filter. He just added when it got off the stick and kept going. 100K plus on it. UOA to this guy was not USEFUL. My father and a few uncles were on the other end of that stick and changed oil on very short OCI's and managed lifetime mileage records people call you a liar for. UOA for him was also not USEFUL.

 

Run it till you break it or toss them like toilet paper. Extremes...always extremes.

 

UOA's are useful tools for sorting issues and for that sector of people that are trying to balance the longest life possible on the least amount of money possible with enough cushion to offset the cost of the testing. 

 

I just asked a question.  

[KARNUT]

8 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

 

And there it is. I've mentioned a coworker in Texas that bought a new 76 Monte Carlo and NEVER changed oil or even the break in filter. He just added when it got off the stick and kept going. 100K plus on it. UOA to this guy was not USEFUL. My father and a few uncles were on the other end of that stick and changed oil on very short OCI's and managed lifetime mileage records people call you a liar for. UOA for him was also not USEFUL.

 

Run it till you break it or toss them like toilet paper. Extremes...always extremes.

 

UOA's are useful tools for sorting issues and for that sector of people that are trying to balance the longest life possible on the least amount of money possible with enough cushion to offset the cost of the testing. 

 

I just asked a question.  

It’s like an addiction that takes constant self control. I was at Honda getting brakes on the odyssey. The last of the expensive maintenance. Next stop 200K. While there because of the chip shortage they had everything an enthusiast could want. A hellcat, scat pack, GT 500, a hot Mercedes SUV etc. All right there. Very expensive easy to pass on. I still broke out in a cold sweat. Then I get online once home my local GMC dealer had a new 4 door decently equipped for 38K. Not bad considering what I’ve been seeing the last couple of years. All I have to do is look at my 02 avalanche that cost 6K everything gets back on track.

[Grumpy Bear]

Knuckleheads

 

There are a few that will tell you even today that smoking is not bad for you and relate how their grandfather smoked 4 packs a day from age 5 and lived to be 105, dying of a hangnail infection. Knuckleheads! 

 

The more UOA's and VOA's I see the less I believe extended OCI's are the wisest choice. Oh, you may have lab backing telling you this or that...like I smoked 3 packs a day...... People get away with 'stuff' all the time, but I look at the data and ignore what so-and-so gets away with. Agendas have a way of bending reality to a shape that fits its need.

 

I just read my new AMSOIL advertising magazine paying special attention to the Euro oils and the writeup on SAPS. I wonder how many read this sort of thing and miss the message. The oil is supposed to protect the motor. What these formulations of additives do is protect the emissions equipment. Protect the OEM from government mandated emissions equipment failure cost. Protect the formulator from liability. Protect the motor, not as much as they use to.

 

The need to lower the TBN does not lower the condemnation point. It shortens the useful life of the oil. 

 

This has been studied to death and the result stand regardless of what the parties involved NEED those results to be. Don't let the TBN fall below the TAN. Part of these data-based studies indicated that a TBN of 4 is a 'safe' lower limit IF LABS ARE NOT AVAILABLE. If they are, then driving it down to a point that is STILL above the TBN may yield a lower limit. Even ester based oils whose acid values start higher will not cross if a 4 base number rule is followed all other things NORMAL. 

 

Three major issues are of current interest in this one simple test. 1.) Few labs run both TBN and TAN. They have an agenda and data will get in its way. 2.) Oils today have lower initial TBN's than before because? Lower SAPS requirements protecting everything and everyone but the equipment. 3.) Ring seal and PCV/CCV system efficiency is horrid exposing the oil to ever higher volumes of combustion byproducts. Small motors under large boost are not helping. 

 

Type this into your browser: How much baking soda does it take to neutralize a gram of vinegar?

 

You will get a very precise explanation of the chemistry and the math that dictates the result. Note that nowhere in that calculation is a factor or value for 'wishes, needs or agendas'. Nor is there an expiration date on the chemistry. "That's old information" argument is not going to work. 

 

Some formulators are using some other chemistries that slow the rate of decline and may extend the time/miles even from a lower initial value BUT you will not know what that slope is without testing a few. 

 

Last but not least. New motors. We often change oil more often because of the higher rate of wear metal contamination and that is valid yet today even if the severity and length have declined somewhat due to improvements in surface finishes. However, new motors dump a lot of combustion byproducts into the oil that depletes the acid pack more rapidly that one fully run in. It is not uncommon nor unexpected to find the base number under 4 by well under 3K miles of service. It just isn't widely known. Oh, and that can persist for more miles than you think. 

 

The agendas change constantly. The formulation chemistry does as well. The reality remains the same.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 10 by Grumpy Bear

[Grumpy Bear]

 clean dirty oil

 

 

 

Draw your own conclusions. 

[Grumpy Bear]

Whole video is funny but the very first clip is gold. 

 

 

Wonder what it looked like at 20K?

[diyer2]

Just another idiot!

[Grumpy Bear]

Biden administration proposes new fuel economy standards for cars and trucks : NPR

 

[Quotes]

 

1.) The EPA rules were crafted so they would be essentially impossible to meet without producing zer0-emission vehicles.

 

2.) Electric vehicles use no gasoline and have no tailpipe emissions, and even counting the emissions from manufacturing them and producing electricity,

 

[End quotes] 

 

Rub both brain cells together when reading those quotes.

The standard for ICE is HIGHER than the standard for EV?

 

 

[quote]

 

Let the Herding begin! Told you. They would find a way to FORCE the result. 

 

And NHTSA regulates fuel economy, with an original mandate of improving America's energy security by reducing reliance on oil.

 

Automakers face hefty fees when they fall short of fuel economy requirements, which are known as Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, standards.

 

[End quotes]

 

What do you think this means for powertrain design? What drives higher operating temperatures and less vicious lubricants? What drives lower additive levels? What effect does this have on durability and reliability? 

 

Sad part? We have lubricants that will meet the current requirements. Problem is.... you can't have any. Why? GREED. 

 

S0, you have to do the best you can with what you have to work with. What does that mean? You have to decide which is more important to you. Your Warranty OR Your Motor? Your neighbor?

 

You WILL violate two to keep the other. 

 

 **************************************************************

Here how I know this:

 

During Covid the air in LA cleared. All over the world it improved. During the 70's oil embargo a national 55 mph speed limit saved enough fuel to weather the storm and produced much less emissions. Cities like Denver that time signals on counter current one-way streets smooth traffic and eliminate start/stop and acceleration/braking fuel waste. Is there a bigger waste of fuel than a fast-food drive through? 

 

Because we cannot bring ourselves to moderate our habits, we are having our toys taken away. 

Good Job!

 

 

 

 

Edited July 30 by Grumpy Bear

[KARNUT]

33 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Biden administration proposes new fuel economy standards for cars and trucks : NPR

 

[Quotes]

 

1.) The EPA rules were crafted so they would be essentially impossible to meet without producing zer0-emission vehicles.

 

2.) Electric vehicles use no gasoline and have no tailpipe emissions, and even counting the emissions from manufacturing them and producing electricity,

 

[End quotes] 

 

Rub both brain cells together when reading those quotes.

The standard for ICE is HIGHER than the standard for EV?

 

 

[quote]

 

Let the Herding begin! Told you. They would find a way to FORCE the result. 

 

And NHTSA regulates fuel economy, with an original mandate of improving America's energy security by reducing reliance on oil.

 

Automakers face hefty fees when they fall short of fuel economy requirements, which are known as Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, standards.

 

[End quotes]

 

What do you think this means for powertrain design? What drives higher operating temperatures and less vicious lubricants? What drives lower additive levels? What effect does this have on durability and reliability? 

 

Sad part? We have lubricants that will meet the current requirements. Problem is.... you can't have any. Why? GREED. 

 

S0, you have to do the best you can with what you have to work with. What does that mean? You have to decide which is more important to you. Your Warranty OR Your Motor? Your neighbor?

 

You WILL violate two to keep the other. 

 

 **************************************************************

Here how I know this:

 

During Covid the air in LA cleared. All over the world it improved. During the 70's oil embargo a national 55 mph speed limit saved enough fuel to weather the storm and produced much less emissions. Cities like Denver that time signals on counter current one-way streets smooth traffic and eliminate start/stop and acceleration/braking fuel waste. Is there a bigger waste of fuel than a fast-food drive through? 

 

Because we cannot bring ourselves to moderate our habits, we are having our toys taken away. 

Good Job!

 

 

 

 

There’s two ways to handle all situations. One is let the market handle it with incentives. Or forcing like what’s happening now. There’s a reason electric vehicles are reaching over saturation at car lots. During the oil embargo my car got 14 mpg. At 70 all mine get between 27-30. I could go on but you get the picture. Except my truck of course.

Edited July 30 by KARNUT

[Grumpy Bear]

I was just reading some marketing blah blah blah in Lubes and Greases based on the two majors in AN production and the add bomb from Torco on this same topic. 

 

No wonder people don't know what to believe. If I swallowed every bite they are serving up, I'd be in pure panic. As ya know, I'm a Red Line HP fanboy and fond of the Euro series. This oil is a PAO/POE blend. 

 

The swill served up is that this blend can be dangerous! Lions and tigers and Bears....OH MY!!!

 

An Overview of Esters in Synthetic Lubricants | Bob Is The Oil Guy

 

Recently I read an article in a religious journal that made this simple and true statement.

 

"Anything can be proved from a false premise." 

 

It is the state of information today. What use to happen was a presentation was given on the unique properties of the new product and how they 'solved' some issue to some application. Instead, we present a false premise or partial truth and show how our product solves a Non-issue. 

 

Here is what is true. AN can be blended with mineral or PAO and the end product with have a greater thermal oxidation resistance than either alone. So will PAO/POE. AN in PAO will improve solvency and additive retention. So will PAO/POE. 

 

PAO/POE with have a higher lubrictiy than PAO/AN! From the linked article. Polyol esters are also the ester of choice for blending with PAOs in passenger car motor oils. This change from lower cost diesters to polyols was driven primarily by the need for reduced fuel consumption and lower volatility in modern specifications.

 

Why? Again from the link:

 

In addition, polyol esters usually have more ester groups than the diesters and this added polarity further reduces volatility and enhances the lubricity characteristics while retaining all the other desirable properties inherent with diesters

 

 

AN's haven't any ester groups or anything that functions like them. 

 

Why use an AN then? $$$$$ It's cheaper than a Polyol. And despite the fact it does not enhance lubricity, similar performance otherwise is possible. 

 

So why is this in this tread? Either method. PAO/POE or PAO/AN or even Group III/AN will raise the oxidation bar high enough to make 5K OCI a walk in the park. Perhaps 7.5K. 

 

IF there is enough reserve base in the chemistry.

 

Point is different base oil combinations have different service lives all other things equal. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 1 by Grumpy Bear

[OnTheReel]

7 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

I was just reading some marketing blah blah blah in Lubes and Greases based on the two majors in AN production and the add bomb from Torco on this same topic. 

 

No wonder people don't know what to believe. If I swallowed every bite they are serving up, I'd be in pure panic. As ya know, I'm a Red Line HP fanboy and fond of the Euro series. This oil is a PAO/POE blend. 

 

The swill served up is that this blend can be dangerous! Lions and tigers and Bears....OH MY!!!

 

An Overview of Esters in Synthetic Lubricants | Bob Is The Oil Guy

 

Recently I read an article in a religious journal that made this simple and true statement.

 

"Anything can be proved from a false premise." 

 

It is the state of information today. What use to happen was a presentation was given on the unique properties of the new product and how they 'solved' some issue to some application. Instead, we present a false premise or partial truth and show how our product solves a Non-issue. 

 

Here is what is true. AN can be blended with mineral or PAO and the end product with have a greater thermal oxidation resistance than either alone. So will PAO/POE. AN in PAO will improve solvency and additive retention. So will PAO/POE. 

 

PAO/POE with have a higher lubrictiy than PAO/AN! From the linked article. Polyol esters are also the ester of choice for blending with PAOs in passenger car motor oils. This change from lower cost diesters to polyols was driven primarily by the need for reduced fuel consumption and lower volatility in modern specifications.

 

Why? Again from the link:

 

In addition, polyol esters usually have more ester groups than the diesters and this added polarity further reduces volatility and enhances the lubricity characteristics while retaining all the other desirable properties inherent with diesters

 

 

AN's haven't any ester groups or anything that functions like them. 

 

Why use an AN then? $$$$$ It's cheaper than a Polyol. And despite the fact it does not enhance lubricity, similar performance otherwise is possible. 

 

So why is this in this tread? Either method. PAO/POE or PAO/AN or even Group III/AN will raise the oxidation bar high enough to make 5K OCI a walk in the park. Perhaps 7.5K. 

 

Point is different base oil combinations have different service lives all other things equal. 

 

 

 

 

 

I did some reading on the HPL Super Car I have ready to go in. PAO, AN, and POE blend according to a thread on BITOG. Any upside to them using all three vs the Red Line PAO/POE?

[Grumpy Bear]

13 hours ago, OnTheReel said:

I did some reading on the HPL Super Car I have ready to go in. PAO, AN, and POE blend according to a thread on BITOG. Any upside to them using all three vs the Red Line PAO/POE?

 

Improvement, yes. Upside, maybe. In your case, the Hellcat, probably. The major improvement would be in solvency. Numerically this improves (aniline number) when an AN replaces partially the PAO. There is even some synergistic improvement in natural oxidative resistance and some limited studies say wear control. The POE brings lubricity to the party. All good. Seems a mimic of the 1980's Mobil 1 Tri-Synthetics. Those were great oils. 

 

Now is there an upside. That's a different question. Let me illustrate. I need a ladder to climb out of a pool. The pool is 20 feet deep. If my ladder is 5 foot long, then a 20-foot ladder is an improvement and has an upside. However, if my old ladder is 30 feet long, then does the extra length have an upside even if it is an improvement in length? You've seen the inside of a Red Line rocker area. Can that be improved on? Ring pack.....that's a different story. 

 

There is one interesting upside not purely performance based. Possible improvement in OCI length. This would have to be explored on a case-by-case basis with lab results based on VOA comparisons. IMHO of course.

 

For the blender this is a unique opportunity to improve a product AND perhaps realize a cost savings. I don't know current component pricing. 

 

Note: In those wear studies, to see the improvement in wear control the loads the speed of the Shell 4 ball had to be increased to the absurd. It also noted that the reason was AN likes motion. Leads one to believe that under 20-foot operation this improvement is hobbled by 'normalcy'. For now, seems a marketing tool used by marketing tools. 

 

Edited August 1 by Grumpy Bear

[Grumpy Bear]

Lubricity v Viscosity

 

There is a tendency to equate lubricity with viscosity. Even WIKI does it and blenders love this sort of thing. Why? Because cost can be reduced IF POE's are replaced with AN's for the purpose of oxidative resistance. The loss of lubricity offset by barbell blending to a lower, yet in spec viscosity for the grade. Then repeating this misinformation until it becomes legend. 

 

Did you know that fruit juices and SAE10 motor oil have the same viscosity at 20 C / 68 F? About 50 cP. Yet fruit juices are sticky and motor oil slippery. Best example I can think of to show that lubricity and viscosity are NOT the same thing. 

 

Viscosity is what happens between the molecules within the lubricant. Lubricity is what happens between the molecules of the TWO things being lubricated and the lubricant. 

 

Sperm Whale Oil use to be added to lubricants, especially ATFs to make them slicker while maintaining the same target viscosity. POE does that job as will additives like Moly and Boron compounds. 

 

The technology exists to blend a PCMO with great properties and use little to no VII and limited other additives. We just can't seem to bring ourselves to do it. Like being energy independent by driving 55. It can be done. Just no interest in doing so. 

 

Did you know? Lubricity obtained by additives will wane as they deplete. Lubricity obtained by base blending esters does not. 

 

 

Edited August 1 by Grumpy Bear