Some Assembly is Required

[Grumpy Bear]

More than a little assembly required

 

https://www.truckinginfo.com/118172/shell-does-engine-teardown-to-compare-protection-of-experimental-low-viscosity-oil

 

A few things of note:

 

1.) They [Shell] used two criteria to judge wear. UOA elemental analysis and visual inspections. No measurements were taken? 

 

2.) The bar set for 'abnormal wear' was really high and it was obscured by the method the data was presented. 

 

[quote] Arcy said Shell already has demonstrated that you can get 1.6% better fuel economy in on-highway trucks by going from that 4.2 to a 3.5, which is currently available in lower-viscosity engine oils. In fact 3.5 is the limit of CJ-4 oils. There is more fuel economy to be had by dropping lower, he said, although he couldn't give an estimate of just how much more.

 

Matt Urbanak, lead formulator, works closely with the field trial team and notes that Shell currently has more than 200 vehicles on test with an annual mileage of more than 25 million miles.

 

"It's normal to see wear" in an engine teardown, he explained. "What we're looking for is whether there's anything abnormal about that wear." [close quote]

 

Fair enough, so what is the benchmark for the Detroit DD15 engine?

 

250 ppm of IRON over a 50,000 mile OCI

 

Not total wear metals but just iron. Interesting that! 

 

Doing the math we get 5 ppm per 1 thousand miles. In testing they got closer to 2 ppm/K with careful formulation of low HTHS oils and by that they meant those at 3.5 cP. 

 

Lake Speed Jr has a benchmark of 5 ppm as well but it is of ALL wear metals combine. 

 

Let this set on the gray matter a few minutes. The OEM's and the Formulators are not looking to IMPROVE wear performance. They are trying to keep wear under a very high limit? When the get close they move the goal post? That is moving the target from 5 ppm TOTAL wear to 5 ppm IRON wear. 

 

In doing so they can claim improved economy without loosing wear control. By loosing they mean did not exceed that high bar. Not the same thing as didn't loose any ground. 

 

Look...0W20 seems to keep iron in check if "In Check" means under 5 ppm/K. But it won't keep total wear metals in check and IMPROVEMENT can be made with more. 

 

[Grumpy Bear]

A VOA of Red Line HP Euro Spec 5W40

Some Assembly Required

 

 

I always start with the Hersey number and the Stribeck Curve. Because that is the starting point. Viscosity. Speed and load are built in to the vehicle and the right foot. Viscosity is what is left. Every additive in the add package is SUPPORT SYSTEM and that fact escapes allot of people. 

 

Viscosity used to be a base oil property. The property the Hersey Number has it's roots in. Used to be and should be, because a truly Newtonian Fluids viscosity isn't subject to changing based on shear or shear stress. Only on temperature. 

 

I work with what I have access to and true performance straight weight oils are history. So what is the 'next best' solution? I'll leave the boredom of history to your research and others.

 

Next best solution is a base oil with a very large viscosity index. If that is possible then ever smaller amounts of VI Improvers, VM's, are required and the smaller the volume the smaller the impact when they do what they do. Break down. It's what polymers do. There is also the VM Polymer quality and stability to look at and the most stable polymers are rarely used in OEM spec oils. But they do exist and are used in more costly boutique oils. Sometimes called 0-5 SSI polymers or 'Star Polymers'. SSI stands for Shear Stability Index. That would be the ASTM D6278 test and good luck getting those results from those that use the cheap stuff. It is hideous how unstable they are. Which brings me to my first point. Why I choose to use a higher SAE viscosity grade. 

 

Because I know that Wally World oils of OEM spec and API certifications are actually only the SAE grade they say they are under the least severe conditions of the basic ASTM D445 conditions and are obscured by the change in reporting methods under the HTHS ASTM D5481 test that report in cP instead of cSt. The density adjustment is killer. In other words I have to start with way more than I think I need to get "In Operation" the value the machine demands to good Hersey Driven wear protection.

 

So there isn't a single base oil that will provide both the required viscosity AND the required Viscosity Index as a stand alone in anything above a SAE *W20 and that isn't heavy enough to get the heavy lift of a million miles done. Much less protect from process upsets...which brings me to the second reason for my viscosity choice. 

 

The OEM has, if any work is done beyond following the company EPA mandate at all, provides only protection for "Normal Operating Conditions". The days of Engineering use of a "hefty safety margin' is gone. But multiple ways viscosity can be compromised is growing in leaps and bounds. Start with fuel dilution of GDI and failed GDI pump seals that go undetected for tens of thousands of mile when there isn't any UOA protocols. 

 

That means target value must be reached in blending bases. Bar Bell Blends provide a wide viscosity envelope. High VI stacked on high VI. 

 

This can not be done with Group III's in anything above a SAE *W20. Ring a bell? Group III bases have a very limited and very low natural viscosity but a pretty good VI which means the go much lower than mineral oils giving cold start protections but fail to deliver hot work protections and you can't bar bell what you don't have. 

 

That job is left to either Group II's for most of the SAE range OR m-PAO's and Esters. Why Lake loves his mPOA's. A little 100 vis goes a long way, and pure PAO blends are so non-polar it can't be added to any great extent. Both of these better bases and not allowed in the read across. 

 

Esters provide both film and polarity. Addition of AN hinders oxidation so now the base is beginning to take on some other properties we find useful that will, once again, limit the amount of SUPPORT additives required. 

 

In the above VOA use of such materials limit the volume of VM to under or about 5% or roughly 10% to 15% less that that required in a Group III base set. 

 

Lets do a quick look at the total. PAO/POE/* give a very good natural viscosity, viscosity index and shear stability before any VM is added at all. This blend also provides exceptional Oxidation and Thermal resistance. In some cases better before adds than some Group II/III blends afterwards. 

 

It has a synergy that provides better lubricity than any single component alone can and the same is true, once again of thermal and oxidative resistance. Cleanliness due to polarity is very good as is additive solvency. Look how close you can get to very good without chemicals. 

 

But chemicals indeed will be needed. WHY? Because every ounce of advantage this blend brings to the table is offset by the OEM's control strategies of using killer heat and ever lower velocity. Hersey again. Big loads, (turbo on small motors), low cruising rpm and hotter than a BBQ pit and we have extended the OCI yet. 

 

I'll work on the adds in the next post. As good as this fluid is, it isn't perfect. No ones is. But we can get close..... 

 

Late Note: VM are the fastest thing to break down in any oil formulation. 

 

Everything you want to know about VM's:

 https://functionalproducts.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/fp-viscosity-jan2025.pdf

 

Edited July 6, 2025 by Grumpy Bear

[Black02Silverado]

10 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Because I know that Wally World oils of OEM spec and API certifications are actually only the SAE grade they say they are under the least severe conditions of the basic ASTM D445 conditions and are obscured by the change in reporting methods under the HTHS ASTM D5481 test that report in cP instead of cSt. The density adjustment is killer. In other words I have to start with way more than I think I need to get "In Operation" the value the machine demands to good Hersey Driven wear protection.

HTHS on an oil considered a good reference as to how long it will hold up?

[Grumpy Bear]

6 hours ago, Black02Silverado said:

HTHS on an oil considered a good reference as to how long it will hold up?

 

If you mean how long the oil will hold up? Generally, no. Oil is under attack by many more forces than shear rate. Thermal, oxidative, chemical, contamination and so on. Most of the list is dependent on power cylinder integrity, ring seal, and environment, both eco and operational. 

 

What it does indicate is how much safety margin you have against a few of these, like fuel dilution. Or coolant loss, overheating. One to be considered, towing heavy and fast. In those cases that answer to your question is a qualified yes. 

 

When we look at the link on these Polymers you notice that OCP polymers range in shear related losses between 22% and 60% at 10% by weight thickening at 100 C. That is the ASTM D6278 test. This is the permanent loss, not the temporary loss. The high shear 100 C losses are even greater, ASTM D6616. That 'feature' ranges perhaps 2 SAE grades! But it is how they hit their API requirements for fuel efficiency. 

 

Now look at the example of the Styrene-OCP MG 1000. What Torco calls in advertisements the 0-5 SSI polymer is literally taken right from the data sheet. Shear is 0 - 5% under the D6616 test an only 15% after a 20 hour KRL injector test. Red Line HP and HP Euro use this type of polymer.

 

To determine then, using HTHS as an indicator, you need to know not the tested value at 150C but the polymer type and it's response at 100 C to all three measurements. D445, D6616 and D6278. 

 

When I buy an oil from the bottom shelf at Wally World, I'm aware the polymer MOST of the time is a OCP and so I vis up hard. At least double. If I buy a Euro spec bottom shelf oil that has an actual certification then I know the polymers D6278 is what they call 'shear stable'. I'm a bit more comfortable. When I buy from the top shelf (boutique) AMSOIL SS in example, and am getting top shelf polymers then...... It is a 'feature' of SS to be shear stable. That can't happen with an OCP polymer. I ran Red Line HP and AMSOIL SS 5W20 in Hondas for decades with great results. 

 

MPT30K avoids the whole mess by not using polymers and sacrifices low temp performance. 

 

And it's not just which polymer but how much and how much depends on the "Reach" of the oil not just the distance between the first and second number but the natural VI of the bases selected. 

 

Because I can't know for sure in every case what is being used, how much is being used and how hard the marketing department is lying to me....I bulk up. What I do know is that the original GM wear studies did so with polymer free Newtonian oils. 

 

More that you asked for and not straight on but we are working with professional liars and know it. I can work with that. 

 

Thanks for the thoughtful question  

 

 

Edited July 6, 2025 by Grumpy Bear

[Grumpy Bear]

A VOA of Red Line HP Euro Spec 5W40

Some Assembly Required

 

 

Elemental sulfur is in everything. It's in the detergent (Ca, Mg) and it's in the AW package (ZDDP/ZDTP), it's in the moly and sulphonated ash is under attack. These two packages are tied together. The AW package is not just a good at wear control but a MAJOR contributor as an antioxidant. Pull back on ZDDP and detergent at the same time and the oil does not last as long. TBN crashes. TAN increases if esters are in play. 

 

The rush to Group III and higher base oils and their synergies was a partial cure so oils with large contents of Group II and lower chemistries were getting left behind. Unable to make the spec is some cases. But like always, the increase in oxidation resistance offered by the improved bases was largely offset by operating conditions as noted earlier and complicated by a reduction on SAPS. 

 

There is also a competition between the AW and the Detergent package on active surfaces and polar oils like that space too. 

 

This idea that oils have advanced and are far superior is half smoke and all mirrors. Not that some don't exist, just not a mortal can get his hands on nor are approved by the OEMs and the API for licensing. 

 

And still not the full story. RING seal is the elephant in the room. If they seal the mater doesn't matter. Poison that hasn't asceses to the Cat's poisons nothing. Low tension rings with DLH faces are still hit and miss in oil control and cylinder seal. Get it right and it's a beautiful thing. Get it wrong and disaster. As the later is more common than the former they crutch the oil to get it past emissions warranty. It's a mess. 

 

In the example under assembly the blender has reduced both calcium and phosphorus and added back next to nothing for Magnesium. Added some boundary chemistry, Moly and a good dose of EP additive, Boron. 

 

By lowering the Ca it makes the Zinc/Phos package more available. In part why I prefer the Euro blend in the HP series is this feature. Although this example is 'suggested' for Porsche C40 (mid saps service) it actually straddled MID and Full Saps. As my rings seal I haven't a worry nor a dog in that fight. I actually add a bit more ZDDP to tip it into the Full SAP arena. That addition increases oxidation resistance making an oil with a lower TBN act as if it were heartier. 

 

Moly also contains some sulfur and you would see in earlier versions of these oils a bit more Moly and allot less boron. The trade was a good one. 

 

I'm not selling or promoting this oil. I'm showing an example of an oil I have history with, experience with and took the time to stick with to learn what it is I know. I could have done the same with any other oil that gave me the access Red Line did. So let's stay on point and focus on the additives and the synergies between them and the base oil selections. 

 

It's a lot of moving parts and it takes time and lab work to fret out and it isn't for everyone. 

 

Any top boutique blender COULD do this sort of thing but a few are relenting to the pressure from an uniformed public to compromise. That does not mean you give up. It means you may wish to modify your choice. Modify your expectations for longevity of the oil. You can't continue to remove all the chemistry that prevents wear and long service life and keep the same maintenance intervals. 

 

BITOG has a pretty large VOA data base. Some current and some older. A tool nonetheless. One of the bigger eyeopeners was oxidation levels of various oils. Anyway...enough for tonight. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 7, 2025 by Grumpy Bear

[Grumpy Bear]

Some Assembly Required

Data Mining

 

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/voa-database.360118/

 

Not an exhaustive list and from an array of labs but the only thing I was attempting to assemble on this dig was oxidation values. A number than indicates presence of Esters. Not analogies to Aniline Point but directional compatible. Aniline point I've learned is a $300 test that would be the cats pajamas, however I will not invest that sort of resources on such a broad spectrum. That said we have boxed in some aniline values that are valuable. 

 

Aniline points over 90* are non-polar and at the mercy of short OCI selection to maintain cleanliness. 

Aniline points between 60 and 90 are polar enough to prevent deposit formation with any reasonable OCI. 

Aniline points between 50 and 60 are quite aggressive cleaners capable of removing even hardened deposits with time.

 

We know that Cummins Valvoline Premium Blue Restore 10W30 clocks in oxidation between 109 and 140. ( I have 3 separate reports) That's a real cleaner and a point toward what it takes to get an Aniline point in the cleaning range. 

 

We have the other end of the scale pinned down by Lake Speed Jr. at an oxidation value of 30 as a minimum which I assume means minimum to be effective as a prophylactic. ( I base this on his earlier works siting a value of 25 now revised upward ). I like his flexibility and willingness to course correct as he learns. 

 

Use of AN's and other polar materials will not permit a straight across Aniline to Oxidation correlation but again, directionally it would be easy enough to make the case than a fully formulated PCMO with an 80 to 120 oxidation to be more aggressive than a 30 to 40 oxidation. 

 

And to that point scrounging around in the data base I find PCMO's grouped into some pretty distinct segments with a few gems emerging. 

 

Most Full Synthetics fall below even 10 oxidation. Mobil 1 ESP formulations and HPL various fall in that 30'ish area. AMSOIL in the 45  range. And while not in this data base Red Line is clocking in between 80 and 124 or just below the CUMMINS product. Compare below CUMMINS and Red Line HP at the same UOA intervals on oxidation only. Note sample one submitted earlier above. Focus.

 

Lab work done by Dyson Labs LLC. 

 

[Grumpy Bear]

You learned how to do this...

Assembly required!

 

What is Algebra? Look it up if you forgot. But it's usefulness is in finding the unknown with what you do know and it's how I made my living for most of my adult life. Fixing stuff smart people break or didn't finish completely enough to be useful by using what I did know and measuring what I didn't then applying the 'laws of the universe' to extract the truth. 

 

I didn't learn this skill in a conventional school room. But in Bible study at my mothers knee. That will draw some ire but it is the truth nonetheless. 

 

Oil is cloaked in "Intellectual Property" which means SPECIFICALY, "I don't want you to know how to fix a thing I need to fail to make my living." Yea, $$$$. Problem is, if I allow this, I lose money I don't have to support another's debt. 

 

Here's the thing. We can work Algebra because it's principles are set in stone and laid on the foundation the Creator established. Ditto the 'rules' of physics and the methods of science and the language of math that explains it all. Something I have complete confidence in. That foundation is unshakable. Newton knew this and he is a damn site smarter that I or anyone else that visits this forum. 

 

2 + 2 will always = 4. There are no "Alternate Facts" no "Subjective Reality" for this truth and I deal in truth. When I don't know a hidden truth I FIND IT by the indirect means of what is indelible and factual that I do know or can be found out. 

 

Then, I assemble it. It is required if you want a thing FIXED someone else doesn't want fixed. 

 

This is what this tread is about. Learning to learn a thing NO one wants you to learn. But some assembly is required. 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 10, 2025 by Grumpy Bear

[customboss]

On 7/8/2025 at 10:19 PM, Grumpy Bear said:

You learned how to do this...

Assembly required!

 

What is Algebra? Look it up if you forgot. But it's usefulness is in finding the unknown with what you do know and it's how I made my living for most of my adult life. Fixing stuff smart people break or didn't finish completely enough to be useful by using what I did know and measuring what I didn't then applying the 'laws of the universe' to extract the truth. 

 

I didn't learn this skill in a conventional school room. But in Bible study at my mothers knee. That will draw some ire but it is the truth nonetheless. 

 

Oil is cloaked in "Intellectual Property" which means SPECIFICALY, "I don't want you to know how to fix a thing I need to fail to make my living." Yea, $$$$. Problem is, if I allow this, I lose money I don't have to support another's debt. 

 

Here's the thing. We can work Algebra because it's principles are set in stone and laid on the foundation the Creator established. Ditto the 'rules' of physics and the methods of science and the language of math that explains it all. Something I have complete confidence in. That foundation is unshakable. Newton knew this and he is a damn site smarter that I or anyone else that visits this forum. 

 

2 + 2 will always = 4. There are no "Alternate Facts" no "Subjective Reality" for this truth and I deal in truth. When I don't know a hidden truth I FIND IT by the indirect means of what is indelible and factual that I do know or can be found out. 

 

Then, I assemble it. It is required if you want a thing FIXED someone else doesn't want fixed. 

 

This is what this tread is about. Learning to learn a thing NO one wants you to learn. But some assembly is required. 

 

 

 

 

Molecular structure of base stocks matters a lot more than Grumps thinks.
 

 Watch 

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/erikwillett_lubricants-grease-synthetics-activity-7351229498874294272-J2aN?utm_medium=ios_app&rcm=ACoAAFR6sR4BXKG5sGwyNig_mItmi9DQw9AdSxU&utm_source=social_share_video_v2&utm_campaign=copy_link

[Grumpy Bear]

That's isn't true! 

 

Really, it's a simple statement. "That isn't true!" It comes without support. Without proof. Without foundation. Without preface. Without more than the breath it is said with. And it sticks like glue. It unhinges decades of study by the smartest people to have ever lived. Desloges reason. Attempts to hold truth hostage. Decimates logic. Denies it's creator. It is in every practical sense, INSAIN. And yet...it is.

 

You know what I do with that? Ignore it, and the people that generate it. The laws of the Universe. The originator of the universe. The founder of truth and the voice of reason doesn't much care if you believe in the those laws. He merely meets out punishing consequences for being ignorant of them, for ridiculing them, for the blatant stupidity of denial. 

 

Something I know about 'law', Universal Laws; they don't bend, break or waver in the face of such beliefs. They are not swayed by conviction. Not influenced by 'likes' or blushed ashamed by popularity. They can be relegated by technology to the back burner. They are the foundation of reality, sanity. 

 

They hear, "That isn't true" and reply with "S0 sad, I don't care". 

 

Me either. And because I hold this to be true I get results support by that law and in the face of any and all ridicule.

 

Very little Assembly Required. 

 

[customboss]

6 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

That's isn't true! 

 

Really, it's a simple statement. "That isn't true!" It comes without support. Without proof. Without foundation. Without preface. Without more than the breath it is said with. And it sticks like glue. It unhinges decades of study by the smartest people to have ever lived. Desloges reason. Attempts to hold truth hostage. Decimates logic. Denies it's creator. It is in every practical sense, INSAIN. And yet...it is.

 

You know what I do with that? Ignore it, and the people that generate it. The laws of the Universe. The originator of the universe. The founder of truth and the voice of reason doesn't much care if you believe in the those laws. He merely meets out punishing consequences for being ignorant of them, for ridiculing them, for the blatant stupidity of denial. 

 

Something I know about 'law', Universal Laws; they don't bend, break or waver in the face of such beliefs. They are not swayed by conviction. Not influenced by 'likes' or blushed ashamed by popularity. They can be relegated by technology to the back burner. They are the foundation of reality, sanity. 

 

They hear, "That isn't true" and reply with "S0 sad, I don't care". 

 

Me either. And because I hold this to be true I get results support by that law and in the face of any and all ridicule.

 

Very little Assembly Required. 

 

SAY WHAAAAAT????

[customboss]

7 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

INSAIN

INSANE 

[customboss]

On 7/8/2025 at 10:19 PM, Grumpy Bear said:

You learned how to do this...

Assembly required!

 

What is Algebra? Look it up if you forgot. But it's usefulness is in finding the unknown with what you do know and it's how I made my living for most of my adult life. Fixing stuff smart people break or didn't finish completely enough to be useful by using what I did know and measuring what I didn't then applying the 'laws of the universe' to extract the truth. 

 

I didn't learn this skill in a conventional school room. But in Bible study at my mothers knee. That will draw some ire but it is the truth nonetheless. 

 

Oil is cloaked in "Intellectual Property" which means SPECIFICALY, "I don't want you to know how to fix a thing I need to fail to make my living." Yea, $$$$. Problem is, if I allow this, I lose money I don't have to support another's debt. 

 

Here's the thing. We can work Algebra because it's principles are set in stone and laid on the foundation the Creator established. Ditto the 'rules' of physics and the methods of science and the language of math that explains it all. Something I have complete confidence in. That foundation is unshakable. Newton knew this and he is a damn site smarter that I or anyone else that visits this forum. 

 

2 + 2 will always = 4. There are no "Alternate Facts" no "Subjective Reality" for this truth and I deal in truth. When I don't know a hidden truth I FIND IT by the indirect means of what is indelible and factual that I do know or can be found out. 

 

Then, I assemble it. It is required if you want a thing FIXED someone else doesn't want fixed. 

 

This is what this tread is about. Learning to learn a thing NO one wants you to learn. But some assembly is required. 

 

 

 

 

You don’t solve chemistry problems with just algebra. You don’t know enough chemistry to solve for your assembly unknowns. Good luck.  

Edited July 16, 2025 by customboss

[Grumpy Bear]

 

 

Since the dawn of time man has put round things that turn on shafts and for just a long sought a medium to prolong the life of that assembly. Animal fat one of the first placed a viscous semifluid between between the two to both limit the number of ox required to pull that wagon and to prolong the life of the assembly. 

 

The key word here is viscous. Even the most early development of lubrication relied on placing a medium BETWEEN to the elements to ELIMINATE as much as possible their interaction promoting both the afore mentioned parameters. 

 

Viscosity keeps parts from touching other parts. But it can only do so if the parameters of Hersey are satisfied and there are some Hersey parameters that physically and practically can not be fully met. Change of direction in example. The reversal of the piston creates a zero velocity point at both extremes of it's Otto Cycle thankfully under low load. A less obvious example is the big end of the rod where due to articulation the crankpin and rod big end reverse directions twice in relation to each other. There are extreme pressure points that exceed the Hersey values for hydrodynamic and even boundary sets. Lifter lobe interface. 

 

This is were AW and EP additives earn their keep. But they do so in SUPPORT of viscosity and not in REPLACEMENT of viscosity. the motor will run just fine without them if the engineering is right. They just wont run as long and the motor wont be as efficient. This has always been and the science does not change because the regulation says so or designs says it wished it so. 

 

I've rabbit holed the gambit of cause and effect in several threads on the needs of the machine, of government and of popular belief.  And we keep coming back to ignorant argument spewed from educated people for stupid reasons to the benefit of no one that actually is using the machine. 

 

The reduction of Sulphur, Phosphorus and viscosity satisfies the needs of regulators, government, producers and blenders, a host of websites and tribologist galore but...it works against the life of the machine.  Politics and profit margins are not in play in a motor running down the road, physics is. 

 

The one that really is a disappointment is the tribologist. They know better. I could make excuses for them. They are forced by the prevailing powers to make the best of a bad situation. And that is true at every level. But what they do next.....they start to believe the crap they are shoveling. It would be just as easy and twice the benefit to tell the truth, explain the reason the truth can't be followed, maintain trust and tell us the NEXT BEST THING than can be done. But no...we must drink the Kool-Aid. Promote the agenda. Loyal to the people you work for instead of the people you serve. 

 

Regulation has painted lube science in a corner and with it left the tribologist holding the brush. I feel for them, I really do. Nothing that they can do about that condition but there absolutely is something that can be done about the lies told and the damage that it does. Tell the truth. It just isn't going to happen. For that, I have no sympathy and no friends. I'm good. 

 

The consumer isn't off the hook in this either. They don't want the problem fixed. If they did they then they wouldn't be driving what the drive at speeds they drive it at and work against regulation, environmental need and reason. They demand a mechanical solution, one that can not be done BTW, for a problem of their own creation so they can perpetuate the problem and do as they wish instead of as they ought. One they could facilitate with the ease of lifting the fat foot off the accelerator in a vehicle two thirds the mass. 

 

What we have here is a lot of self inflicted pain with a workable solution that is resisted by those the solution would most benefit and supported by a cancel culture from true expertise whose only goal is keeping all the marbles.  The heck with what is true. 

 

When I call this stupidity out by throwing a truth rock in the dog pound, the dog it hits is the dog that yelps. Remove yourself from the pound and those rocks can hurt you. No one cares about what is in the pipeline a decade or two from now. What do I we have access to and how do we extract the best outcomes from what we mortals can get a grip on? 

 

Be useful....

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 3, 2025 by Grumpy Bear

[Grumpy Bear]

Let me Assemble that for you.

 

What does an oil Formulator do? Not the workhorse formulators and blenders but the research guys trying to get ICE's to run reliably on 0W8 fluids? 

 

 

He's looking for a workaround to LAW. In this case Stribeck. He's trying to uncouple Hersey from FRICTION & WEAR. 

 

Silly really because friction and wear are already uncoupled. Says so right on the chart. Once there is enough viscosity to keep parts from touching parts wear is zero. The trick is that word enough. Enough depends on Hersey and Hersey has conditions that need to be met to keep things apart.

 

Hersey has three components. Velocity, Viscosity and Surface Finish Height. 

 

Every finish new lacquer? Orange peel. Removing it requires sanding and that is done in stages working from rough to smoother grits and once down to the finest grits we use polishes to make the surface even smoother and if you get it smoot enough water will bead on it and sheet off without the use of hydrophobics like wax.

 

Water has a viscosity of 1 cP. 

 

What is the point? The surface height near zero will not 'wet' and when it can't wet it can't lubricate. It's why your bore has a crosshatch and why those that don't use oil. There is a limit to how smooth a surface can be and the limit has been with us as a LAW since the dawn of time. 

 

But if wear reduction is the goal can't we just make it harder? Same principle applies. There is a limit to hardness. That limit was found nearly a hundred years ago. 

 

So...if we have been at the limits of hardness and smoothness for a long time then there is also a limit to viscosity reduction. And that has been studied to death and isn't changing. Which brings us back to FORMULATORS. 

 

EP and AW additives. That's the hubbub. We didn't always know about them so we didn't always have them or rely on them which meant service life was limited by wear. And boy do we have a selection to work with now and developing more all the time. But...they to have limits. One of those limits is toxicity and environmental impact. 

 

So we now live in a world where we are driving down viscosity and driving down AW/EP additives and we've made it as smooth and as hard as possible and we want more. And we have lengthened OCI's to past the point where the formulations are serviceable. What is the next step?

 

Well kids, we've already taken that step too. Move the expectations goal post. Backward a hundred years. We now live in a throw away society. It's isn't good for the machine but is great for business.

 

That goal post is measurable and they hope manageable.  That is marketing's new job is expectation management         

 

    

Just shorten Time

 

How are they doing? What are your service life expectations? I'll bet 20 years isn't on your dance card. Most people can't imagine living with a machine for 200K miles. They are ready to trade at the end of warranty, 60K miles!! About half the service life of my cars from the 1960's!

 

Machines aren't better (from a wear standpoint) . Oil isn't better and getting worse. Expectations are just lower.

 

As long as I have access I have tools to work against this foolishness I will. After that I ride a horse.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 3, 2025 by Grumpy Bear

[customboss]

11 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Let me Assemble that for you.

 

What does an oil Formulator do? Not the workhorse formulators and blenders but the research guys trying to get ICE's to run reliably on 0W8 fluids? 

 

 

He's looking for a workaround to LAW. In this case Stribeck. He's trying to uncouple Hersey from FRICTION & WEAR. 

 

Silly really because friction and wear are already uncoupled. Says so right on the chart. Once there is enough viscosity to keep parts from touching parts wear is zero. The trick is that word enough. Enough depends on Hersey and Hersey has conditions that need to be met to keep things apart.

 

Hersey has three components. Velocity, Viscosity and Surface Finish Height. 

 

Every finish new lacquer? Orange peel. Removing it requires sanding and that is done in stages working from rough to smoother grits and once down to the finest grits we use polishes to make the surface even smoother and if you get it smoot enough water will bead on it and sheet off without the use of hydrophobics like wax.

 

Water has a viscosity of 1 cP. 

 

What is the point? The surface height near zero will not 'wet' and when it can't wet it can't lubricate. It's why your bore has a crosshatch and why those that don't use oil. There is a limit to how smooth a surface can be and the limit has been with us as a LAW since the dawn of time. 

 

But if wear reduction is the goal can't we just make it harder? Same principle applies. There is a limit to hardness. That limit was found nearly a hundred years ago. 

 

So...if we have been at the limits of hardness and smoothness for a long time then there is also a limit to viscosity reduction. And that has been studied to death and isn't changing. Which brings us back to FORMULATORS. 

 

EP and AW additives. That's the hubbub. We didn't always know about them so we didn't always have them or rely on them which meant service life was limited by wear. And boy do we have a selection to work with now and developing more all the time. But...they to have limits. One of those limits is toxicity and environmental impact. 

 

So we now live in a world where we are driving down viscosity and driving down AW/EP additives and we've made it as smooth and as hard as possible and we want more. And we have lengthened OCI's to past the point where the formulations are serviceable. What is the next step?

 

Well kids, we've already taken that step too. Move the expectations goal post. Backward a hundred years. We now live in a throw away society. It's isn't good for the machine but is great for business.

 

That goal post is measurable and they hope manageable.  That is marketing's new job is expectation management         

 

    

Just shorten Time

 

How are they doing? What are your service life expectations? I'll bet 20 years isn't on your dance card. Most people can't imagine living with a machine for 200K miles. They are ready to trade at the end of warranty, 60K miles!! About half the service life of my cars from the 1960's!

 

Machines aren't better (from a wear standpoint) . Oil isn't better and getting worse. Expectations are just lower.

 

As long as I have access I have tools to work against this foolishness I will. After that I ride a horse.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It’s hard to follow your logic but let’s try. 
 

For 100 years SAE 20 is the SAME as present day 0w-8 ,0w-16, 0w-20; as a matter of fact additives that make the SAE 20 meet 0w actually make it more viscous than a straight SAE 20 but pour point depressants ensure it cranks and pumps to a 0w , 5w cold. 
 

FRICTION AND WEAR are not related. I think you said that but it’s confusing if you understand that it’s not. 
 

So there’s nothing new to an engine like my 2025 Subaru 2.5 H4 DI running a SAE 0w-16 because it’s just a cold flowing former J300 viscosity range SAE 20. 
 

You are going in circles again. 
 

Maybe watch this again so you aren’t confused. 

 

Edited August 3, 2025 by customboss