lubricants Valvoline Restore Protect eval

[Grumpy Bear]

1 hour ago, customboss said:

Now don't think its that simple because you don't add cyclo alone.  But I am betting this is a building block cause its EFFECTIVE and CHEAP unlike all the esters we have discussed ad nauseam here and at other websites that still don't know. 

 

 

 

Are not esters and AN's the polar components used in the Valvoline Patent? 

[customboss]

27 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

 

Are not esters and AN's the polar components used in the Valvoline Patent? 

Who says that patent is exactly describing the VRP?  “Esters”

[Grumpy Bear]

1 hour ago, customboss said:

Who says that patent is exactly describing the VRP?  “Esters”

 

Is that what I said?  Let's look...... 

 

1 hour ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Are not esters and AN's the polar components used in the Valvoline Patent? 

 

Yep. I didn't say in R&P, I said  in the Valvoline Patent?

 

Whew,   that was a close one. 

[customboss]

2 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

 

Is that what I said?  Let's look...... 

 

 

Yep. I didn't say in R&P, I said  in the Valvoline Patent?

 

Whew,   that was a close one. 

We discussed Patents and chemistry right? We are talking about VRP stay on task.....

[Grumpy Bear]

6 hours ago, customboss said:

We discussed Patents and chemistry right? We are talking about VRP stay on task.....

 

I'm not doing this sport. Your first post IS the TASK. It IS a discussion of that patent. Move on. 

[customboss]

28 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

 

I'm not doing this sport. Your first post IS the TASK. It IS a discussion of that patent. Move on. 

The first post was me trying to set this page up. I haven’t even listened all the way through. This is a collaborative group. Not a competition. I need help. Not ****** stirring. 

[Grumpy Bear]

4 minutes ago, customboss said:

The first post was me trying to set this page up. I haven’t even listened all the way through. This is a collaborative group. Not a competition. I need help. Not ****** stirring. 

 

Then do enough homework on your own reference materials to know what you're replying to when questioned. Don't snap at me. I won't put up with it.  I did you no harm sir.  I stirred no pots. Now...move on. 

 

Your forgiven. 

 

[customboss]

I need help guys keeping things straight. Remember I’m brain firing on 3 outta 8! 
Forgiveness is good  

[customboss]

Reviewed patent for VALVOLINE RESTORE,   does not mention PROTECT and it was done right after Cummins allowed Valvoline to release to consumers.  VRB is a lower cost version with an Indian sourced cleaning mechanism that's not what we expect as a BASE.  Its probably a lower dose of something like the cyclohexanol  mixed with a blending agent and then alkalated in some form.  That kind of mixture will have OSP level of aniline capability. 

 

This patent while informative and  showing their directional move from that time frame,  post CUMMINS R&D materials  participation is NOT the VRB. 

 

I applaud the microbiologist engaging this and he is welcome to hang out here! 

 

Discuss VRP video and lets introduce a new chemistry that's not so new  was looped and attached to this thread a day ago or so, so  please read fully before attacking to all who choose to,  we are gonna work together here not fight about semantics.  I want to know what VRB is so I can gauge whether its worth running a GRP II/III blend with a very unique additives for the cost at Walmart, WE ALL KNOW DOES IT WORK IN OUR APPLICATIONS! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[customboss]

On 3/5/2025 at 1:28 PM, Grumpy Bear said:

3.) Note paragraph 27. Not highlighted and not part of his discussion but rather a nut a blind squirrel found. I'd seen an SAE paper on this decades ago that I have not be able to find since. 

 

 

Why does this matter? Planar Shear. The mechanism used to lower the traction coefficient. Lubricity. How these two components 'play' with each other. The polar component attaches to the metal and the non polar component then 'slides' or shears past it. No internal fluid friction is involved. So not a property of viscosity. "Drag" is reduced with no sacrifice in viscosity. Remember, you already get a lower tractive force by swapping the Group III for the PAO. Adding the polyol "in the correct proportion' further reduces that drag. 

 

I gotta think about that comment. If I can. 

 

Best I can tell VRP is a GRP II/III blend with a surprise in there that we are attempting to figure out.  

 

This patent treatise is excellent I agree but its NOT VRP.  The theory of formulation changed because?????? COST. 

 

Valvoline NEVER marketed RESTORE except as a CUMMINS product marketed exclusively as a cleaning regimen mostly for ISX 15 engine.   The patent our microbiologist friend broke out looks like a dumb downed group III version of CUMMINS RESTORE we shared DysonAnalysis worked from off the shelf products. 

 

We must focus on VRB because the RESTORE is long gone but available still from Cummins while supplies last and $70 a gallon usually. 

 

 

 

[customboss]

On 3/5/2025 at 1:28 PM, Grumpy Bear said:

Comments on the first video about the patent. 

 

We now have numbers for the feature of solvency that add weight to several statements I've made over the years. They are in the patent. 

 

1.) Solvency can be measured by Aniline point. 

2.) That number indicates the ability of the fully formulated oils ability to clean and prevent deposits.

3.) The base oil components mentioned are indeed those used to do the things I said they did. 

 

But what was new? (I never had numbers like this and to me this is HUGE)

 

1.) Aniline point below 55 is destructive to seals and corrosive.

2.) Aniline point above 90 is ineffective. (My guess is most shelf oils will be above 90 degrees). 

3.) Aniline point below 90 will PREVENT deposits (as long as the OCI is short enough to prevent oversaturation) 

4.) Sweet spot for cleaning is 60-65 degrees. 

 

What else?

 

1.) This combination of Polyol/AN/PAO has a very high PDSC Oxidation value. Over 100 minutes. ASTM D6186-19

Industry standard is 40 minutes. (If I heard/read correctly)

2.) Because of #1 the fluid last longer and deposits less by multiples. 

3.) Note paragraph 27. Not highlighted and not part of his discussion but rather a nut a blind squirrel found. I'd seen an SAE paper on this decades ago that I have not be able to find since. 

 

 

Why does this matter? Planar Shear. The mechanism used to lower the traction coefficient. Lubricity. How these two components 'play' with each other. The polar component attaches to the metal and the non polar component then 'slides' or shears past it. No internal fluid friction is involved. So not a property of viscosity. "Drag" is reduced with no sacrifice in viscosity. Remember, you already get a lower tractive force by swapping the Group III for the PAO. Adding the polyol "in the correct proportion' further reduces that drag. 

 

4.) POE is not always required on the basis of thermal stability but it's contribution to solvency and improvement in tractive force is pure gravy. 

 

5.) The POE's used ARE HYDROLITICLY STABLE. 

 

Enough for this post. 

Is there a lower cost way to accomplish the VRP effect?

Remember the posts about PW 4360 recip engine outrunning its engine oil? What did USAF do in 1964-1966? 

MIL-L-22851 Oil vs. MIL-L-6082 — In 1964 an investigation was conducted to determine the cause of engine problems being experienced with MIL-L-6082 oil with two percent (2%) cyclohexanone. Inspection of the general internal condition of reciprocating engines repeatedly singled an abnormal build-up of sludge, carbon, and lacquer in Air Force engines. Field replacement of nose sections, magneto spacer cases, and blower clutches were at an all time high. Erratic torque, sluggish propellers, etc. were all too frequently reported. In view of the above, an intensive investigation was conducted by SAAMA to find an improved lubricant for Air Force engines. Our findings were:

1. An ashless dispersant oil (MIL-L-22851) was developed in co-operation with aircraft manufactures including Pratt & Whitney, Wright Aeronautical, Lycoming, and Continental Motors. All engine manufactures and FAA sanction the use of this oil.
2. The lubrication and heat transfer capabilities of MIL-L-6082 oil and MIL-L-22851A oil are identical. The base stock oil utilized to produce MIL-L-22851A Type II oil is MIL-L-6082 Grade 1100 Oil. The only difference being the additive as depicted in paragraphs 3.2.1 through 3.2.2 of Military Specification MIL-L-22851A.
3. Navy and Army have converted to MIL-L-22851A oil. Navy has been utilizing MIL-L-22851A oil in all their aircraft since 1961.
4. As of January 1962, 72 commercial users world-wide, have converted to ashless dispersant type oil.
5. Special oil qualifications tests have been conducted by SAAMA, MAAMA, AFAPL, Navy, and contractors to insure oil delivered to the Air Force meets requirements set forth in Military Specification MIL-L-22851A. Tests will be conducted to insure quality of oil does meet specification limits.
6. SAAMA has a program in effect since mid 1964 to evaluate results of MIL-L-22851A oil. Approximately five (5) different engine models are given special teardown analysis at SAAMA each month to evaluate effects of MIL-L-22851A oil. Internal parts of engines are inspected for condition of bearings, wear points, cleanness, if oil passages are free of foreign matter, etc. Analysis of results has provided conclusive proof MIL-L-22851A oil is satisfactory for use in all Air Force reciprocating engines.

So what are the base oil  constituents used in  MIL-L-22851A that replaced 2% cyclohexanone with MIL-L-6082 in a HP recip engine that was trying to keep up with the jet age? 
https://www.enginehistory.org/Piston/P&W/R-4360/r-4360_service.shtml

[customboss]

Why am I bringing your attention to an old chemical that made up MICRO LUBE and MIL SPEC oil and an additive. 
 

Listen to the OIL GEEK VRP video and focus on Roger Dale Englands comments CLOSELY. 

 

15:40 into OIL GEEK video to 16:36 and a bit past. 
 

Both Tim Kennedy and Roger say when comparing CUMMINS RESTORE TO VRB  VRB = “different chemistry” and CPBR  “ ALOT OF ESTER”. Tom Brady effect: In lab testing it looks like any other lube. 
In “ the game of engines” it out performs. 

 

So from the Chief Tech Officer England we know VRB IS NOT A TRADITIONAL OR PATENTED  ESTER formula CUMMINS DID WITH Valvoline BLENDING originally. VRB found another way. 
@Grumpy Bear one way to attack this mystery is to eliminate what we know it isn’t. 
 

What in 

1 hour ago, customboss said:

MIL-L-22851A

Allowed replacement of MIL-L-6082 and 2% DuPont cyclohexanone? 
 

@Black02Silverado is ex AF but 25-30 years after these lubes used but can you assist us? 
 

NOTE I feel an affinity for Valvoline so I don’t want to publicly ruin their gig with VRB. It seems to work. 
 

Finally on aniline scale what shows negative #’s but is still solvent? 

 

[customboss]

• 5w20 GF7 formulation 
• Lets focus on some public disclosures. 
• Aramco does own Valvoline Global. 
• Aramco owns MOTIVA. 
• MOTIVA sells the Nat gas sourced base oils.  Think super refined GRP III++, basically PAO capable but theoretically lower cost since they aren't gonna make synfuels from it. 
• up to 473F flash! 
• Formulation density .851
• So cleaning mechanism? 

 

 

 

 

 

PROPRIETARY OF 000000276110 Not Assigned   Anyone figure this out?  Patent application, where? 

 

 

 

 

VAL RESTORE & PROT FS 5W20 6_946 ML CA 000000000000907072 United States - English.pdf

Edited March 12 by customboss

[Grumpy Bear]

Those CAS codes and descriptors tell me a GTL and a Group II blend.

 

MOTIVA Enterprises was a joint venture of Royal Dutch Shell and Saudi Aramco. This is the Shell GTL license. Now owned, as you say, by Aramco. Divested in 2017. 

 

Good find! 

 

 

[customboss]

Anyone want me to test VR&P 0w-20 ? See my latest test result :