Oil xplained

Above I have posted a link to a very helpful write up on how to understand oil. Hopefully if it is well received maybe we could make it sticky to help future oil threaders.

Really good dissertation on modern oils.

From a motorcycle perspective, what changes is the wet clutches rip the oil molecules apart, reducing viscosity rapidly unless the oil manufacturer has really done their homework.

So an oil which maintains viscosity for the service length of the oil, in a car, will fail in as little as 1/4 the time in a motorcycle.

This is one of Amsoil's biggest claims to fame, one supported by extensive real world testing and analysis, that their synthetic motorcycle oil will maintain near full viscosity for the full service life.

To us, riding machines which have viscious wet clutches, this is very important.

Stiky-ness applied. Thanks for the link. -bg

Good write up

Unless I missed something (and that's possible, given the amout of information presented: I did re-read it a 2nd time), I think an important data point is missing in the writeup.

The author was careful to mention, and explain, VII's and their role in mineral oil formulation. Also mentioned their ability to wear out, leaving the thinner base oil as they (the VII additives) wear out.

*But*, what he failed to include (and I dont know the answer, I'm ignorant on this point), is what is it that added, if anything, to "thin" the synthetic oil base product from it's starting grade?

That is, he writes that one of the primary benefits of using synthetic oil is that the oil is formulated from a "thick" base grade that has the desired viscosity at the 212 deg. engine operating temperature, and that no VII additives are needed, and so there's no VII to wear out with use.

Another primary benefit of synthetic oil use is that it's apparently "thinner", or less viscose, than the same (multi)grade mineral oil, at normal room temperatures (like, in the garage, 1st thing in the morning, at startup). It's thinner, and so causes less wear at startup.

Soooo... why is this? What's added to synthetic (if anything) for it to have this desireable property? And, if it's an additive, does it wear out too?

The author is silent on this point, and that's my point.

Mebgardner, what most people don't realize is that the base chemistry of a lubricating fluid is very low viscosity to begin with. For example, when formulating with esters and PAO base fluids, the predominant base will be a product known in the industry as a PAO 4 or a PAO 6. This is the basestock used to make the synthetic oil. A quick google search of PAO 4 or PAO 6 will result in information that shows the actual viscosity of these base fluids to be in the 4 - 6 centistoke range (hence the name).

In comparison, the finished product created from these low-viscosity base fluids will be in the 10 - 14 centistoke range (@100ºC). It is the addition of polymeric thickeners that create the desired and much higher viscosity from the base fluid. It is not necessary to thin the base but rather to thicken it.

To determine the quality of these thickeners you can simply compare the Viscosity Index of the finished product. The higher the index, the better the fluid is at resisting viscosity change and therefore the more stable the finished fluid is. One example is the NOACK volatility of the PAO 4 against the PAO 6. A PAO 4 has a volatility of 13% in raw form. A PAO 6 has a volatility of 6.3% in raw form. This makes a HUGE difference in the ability of the finished product to meet the more stringent requirements of many European vehicle manufacturers and the newer emission requirements of the API and JASO standards.

It is for this reason that I personally don't use 0W-XX oils in my vehicles. PAO 4 is used to formulate products such as Mobil-1 0W-30 and 0W-40 while PAO 6 is used for their 5W-40 and 10W-40 products. Laboratory comparison between PAO 4 and PAO 6 shows the stability to be exponentially greater with PAO 6 over PAO 4. In fact, ExxonMobil mentions this in many of their advertisements throughout several tribology and lubrication magazines, without naming specific finished product lines. The one drawback is the cold-flow properties of the PAO 6. It simply doesn't perform as well in the extreme cold as the PAO 4 does.

@Fowvay:

Thanks for taking the time to further my education. I truely am grateful for your time and energy into explaining these things to me.

You realise your explanations are at odds with the original "Oil explained" treatis? (the link, above).

That author is clear in his explanation of synthetic oil, in that it's base oil is high viscosity and that it's room temperature viscosity is low (lower than the same grade multi-grade mineral oil). But, he does not speak to how it's manufactured to obtain those desireable properties.

On the other hand, you speak to it specifically, with details. The details just dont happen to agree with the original author. But hey, I'm OK with that. Data is good, so long as the data is good :)

One thing bothers me about your explanation of this point, tho. You write about the addition of viscosity modifiers to synthetic oils. I have in view here full synthetics, not blends. You also write about the ability to resist viscosity change, and denote it as viscosity volatility, a valuable property of the added modifiers. It's the addition of these modifiers that bothers me about the explanation. The original author is emphatic about the point that full synthetics have no additional viscosity modifiers to wear out over use. Yet, your explanation indicates there are these same modifier additives. (At least, I think I read they're the same idea). I am not educated enough on this subject to rationalize the opposing views, but I do note the opposing views...

On a different point...

The viscosity volatility property, with a lower numeric percentage value being better.

On this point, your goals and desires are different than the original author's. He stresses that his goal is to minimize engine damage during the (what he calls) critical startup time period, at room temperature. Your goal is apparently to reduce viscosity volatility so "...to meet the more stringent requirements of many European vehicle manufacturers and the newer emission requirements of the API and JASO standards".

All well and good. But, the goals *are* different. In my opinion, I like to minimize engine damage during startup, if it makes my engine wear (last) longer. But, that's just my opinion...

If one were to maintain the recommended service intervals doesn't the volatility disparity between 4 and 6 become moot?

Yes Hagrid, the volatility point is moot when high quality fluids are used. The JASO MA standard for our motorcycles allows for a NOACK of a incredibly high 20% which is pathetic. My point was simply to show that when formulating for different standards the base fluid is often chosen in order to achieve a specific laboratory requirement.

And please don't take anything that I write as a negative toward Dr. Haas. Dr. Haas is a incredibly intelligent medical doctor who has chosen plastic surgery as his profession. While his writings are interesting and well intended, Dr. Haas is often in error with his assumptions. If anyone here is ever lucky enough to enjoy dialogue with Dr. Haas you will find that he had never formulated the first drop of a lubricant for use in any engine whatsoever.

Thank you, sir.

May I gently enquire as to your credentials?

@Fowvay:

Whew! There is a bewildering array of data regarding PAO's out there, and this is apparently a broadly debated question.

So, I have one for ya :)

There's an entry from privateer earlier in this thread. I'm interested in your opinion of his assertion regarding shear property performance, as found in "wet" clutchs, of synthetic oils.

Do we, as a motorcycle community, need to pay attention to this detail?

I believe him, but I dont see a clutch operating environment being any more severe with respect to shear than a travelling piston...

So, I'm now reading about another piece of new lubricating tech: The GTV oil base.

Shell has been delivering GasToLiquid (GTV) oil base, made from natural gas and produced in Quatar, to American shores (Houston) for about 10 months now.

This is an ISO Parrafin base oil (a wax?!!) subsitute for Poly Alpha Oleofin (PAO's), in the synthetic marketplace.

I have no idea what class this stuff is (III, IV, or V).

My question is:

Does anyone know if commonly available oils, in the local Joe's Auto Store, have this stuff in it?

If yes, which one's are using it in their formulation?

Anyone?

Meb, my credentials aren't really worth mentioning. I am a chemist by education but earn my wages in the aviation/aeronautical industry. I do hold STLE certification as a degreed tribologist but I don't work the industry so I am truly not up-to-date on the incredibly advancing lubrication field. I can say that currently Shell oil is using the GTL (gas-to-liquid) technology in their Pennzoil synthetic product line in North America.

I have been fortunate to have had the opportunity to discuss formulation data with one of the world's most gifted lubricant formulators. This talented man is Edgar Steigerwald who holds numerous patents while working for ESSO Europe and currently works at Pentosin in Hamburg. It was Dr. Steigerwald's recommendation that I try using a anti-oxidant chemistry to combat fluid shear during a period of research for my schooling. By overbasing a strong PAO oil with the anti-oxidant Ciba Irganox L57 at 300% above normal accepted limits (approximately 2.5% by weight), I was able to completely eliminate the shearing of a Mobil Delvac-1 5W-40 oil in the Bosch injector test. Amazingly I saw no negative impact from this action (L-57 is high in nitrogen). Unfortunately I am unable to explain why this eliminates shear. It's a bit beyond my understanding and better left to the PhD's.

These discussions are purely academic however. We as consumers are faced with a broad array of very high quality products. I think that any name brand lubricant used within the engine manufacturers recommendation is going to serve us very well. The industry has advanced very far in the past 20 years almost to the point of being able to produce a world class lubricant from septic tank sludge.

If you'd care to read some research please feel free to browse this patent. It directly relates to the utilization of a anti-oxidant to a PAO base for the stability of frictional coefficients in transmission fluid. Very fascinating stuff (if not directly related to motorcycle motor oils)!!

http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/6521570.html

Fowvay:

The industry has advanced very far in the past 20 years almost to the point of being able to produce a world class lubricant from septic tank sludge.

Ha! You're funny! That's good humor, I like it! You ever see a septic tank? OMG! Hahahaha....

Anyway, that's something you and the good Dr. Haas agree on, then. The manufacturers have really worked hard to bring us the best possible lubricants these last couple decades, and we have many good choices.

I'm glad to have discussed with you.

I'm gonna pick up the thread where you and hagrid left off. I think I read that you agreed with him, such that maintaining the recommended service interval essentially took the viscosity volatility out of PAO 4 vs. PAO 6 "goodness" equation.

I'm really a nuts 'n' bolts kinda guy, preferring to use "what works". If a 0W-XX grade realy offers better protection during the room temperature startup conditions (if this really is when / where most of the damage is done), then I want to do that.

Given that you and hagrid have worked out that, with routine service, that volatility becomes less of an issue, then does it make sense to make engine damage reduction the next issue to focus on? Does it make sense to use the thinnest room temperature grade that has the corrrect 100 deg. C operating parameters? (This also assumes that the shear business end of the slick stuff holds up for use in wet clutch environs).

You would not know unless I told you, so I'm saying it: I'm asking you because I respect your opinion.

I'm not sure WHAT just happened?LOL!!!3K...10/40 Full syn Motul...(7100).;)

CIba Irganox L57 is an anti oxidant. It prevented shearing in the injector test because it prevented the oxygen molecules from sticking together causing the foam we sometimes see in oil with our naked eyes. The nitrogen content in the l57 is causing the oxygen molecules to formulate a different strand. Thus preventing the shear. But, what our colleague doesn't mention is that in order to prevent the shear the amount added created diminishing returns in lubricity in long wear situations. Ciba caused failure in the Diesel engine test, and funny results in the turbine test (tan/tost). Looks to me like Ciba is slightly coarse at high temp under load, meaning, it's stopping shear but creating heat through its friction loss. This why when used as an oil additive it is kept under a certain allowable level.
I am big big fan of Ester meself.

Stead of adding 2.5% Ciba by volume, I would have gone 1.5% + 1% ester. Keeps the lubricity under long continuos thermal load AS WELL as the shear stability from the anti oxidant. Then it would be great in not just an f1 cars short bursts but also a Diesel engines long continuos load. Ur prof would have kissed ya on the mouth instead of just givin ya an A.

* Last updated by: Cblast on 7/18/2013 @ 11:08 PM *

haha,, this was years ago and formulating a lubricant wasn't really the objective. There are far more acceptable methods of reducing foam and keeping the molecules intact. This was a shear result experiment which worked well for me.

As with all schooling, this was merely a building block for furthering our knowledge base on a particular subject. And I simply don't know why I never had any of those 'HOT' teachers that seem to show themselves on the news these days. Anyway, I'm glad that you took the time to look this up. It is a very fascinating subject to those so inclined.

It is! Ya got me thinking, so, I have been sending in used samples of my oil and compiling the data. I know what me senses tell me. The amsoil I used failed after 1100 miles, I could see it, smell it, touch it, taste that it was shot. The silkolene which uses an ester additive to its synthetic base doesn't break down under strenuous same same type wear for at least 1500 miles. I am still awaiting results from the last sample of silkolene. But this thread backs up what I learned by sense, that a pure simple ester based synthetic is still the broadest and best performer over the life of a motorcycle engine simply due to the rapid and many heat cycles! Thanks for sparking my interest sir! :)))

And as for the hot teachers, I was truly hoping that you at least got some heavy petting for those wicked experiments!!!!!! ;)

* Last updated by: Cblast on 7/19/2013 @ 8:02 AM *

I'm really a nuts 'n' bolts kinda guy, preferring to use "what works". If a 0W-XX grade realy offers better protection during the room temperature startup conditions (if this really is when / where most of the damage is done), then I want to do that.

Cblast:

I'm still interested in this part of the formulation (the room temp startup conditions, where some say most of the wear over the life of the engine, occurs). Do you have any data this speaks to it?

Thanks,
Bob

Yessir. What I found is that the modern synthetic base used by any oil produced by Fuchs not only provides all the stated shear resistance of say an amsoil (which is pure with no friction modifiers or additives), but with none of the almost 'surface tension allergy' I see in the pure synthetics. That just means the adding of ester (which has been done with oil for a very long time for good reason), has added a level of lubricity back to the oil without degrading shear resistance. The pure synthetic almost pushes itself away from the metal see. It drains away from your top end and you have a dry start friction thing going on. Ester and synth are peas and carrots. The synth is all the lube and the ester stops the molecules from from pushing away from the metal molecules while not holding on to them either. It has more to do with variance in speed of the molecules in a synthetic oil with ester added than without. Now, let me say, that is MY OPINION! I don't have my data back from the last batch of silkolene yet. What I see so far is: in a high performance motorcycle engine, I prefer a synthetic pure base quality oil that also has ester added. I use silkolene cause that's what I have always used. That theory and construction of gas turbine engines course I took validated my guesses. Some of the fellas at emery riddle use silkolene grease exclusively. I asked why. I used that same grease on wheel bearings as a kid and a lightbulb went off when I saw a tub of it.

OK, thanks. I understood that, and was very much interested in the statement about the "variance in speed of the molecules", and understood that in the context of beginner chemistry.

Since this *is* an oil thread, I dont mind asking:

Do you know of other manufacturer's product, readily available, that exhibit these same qualities. Silkolene is a bit of a "custo" product, not readliy avilable except via mail order (I think)...

Give me a little time to confirm brands, but I believe a lot of the motul line follows suit as does several others, I don't want to post pics or make a brand Rec that is wrong. I am physically gonna stop at my dealer and fondle some labels and get back to you. I need to see the products description on the back so I can decifer the marketing from the truth sir. Kind of a fun mission actually! If I don't have a mission of some sort I get bored and go get in trouble. My new sport of tag with certain ego types is gonna get me in hot water. :)))

* Last updated by: Cblast on 7/19/2013 @ 11:57 AM *

And I don't want anyone getting me wrong! I used amsoil at my first oil change, because i do know it is very good oil. I wasn't riding my bike hard and my dealer was out of silkolene. So I used it. It was fine. When I say I wasn't riding hard, I mean by my standards. I'm not stroking my fing ego. I don't care what a single person thinks of my riding ability. Just sharing info is all. So, back to point. If I rode my bike like a sport/tourer, I would just run whatever good synthetic was readily available and i would just swap it out whenever it went dark in the sight window. I don't ride it like a sport tourer. I am lucky enough to have chosen where I live based on roads available as part of my math. When I ride my normal way on the roads I know, I hit redline anywhere from twenty to twenty five times in a given ride. I do that all the time. I find it fun as shit! But, it's hard on oil. Hard on bikes. This my pursuit of something better FOR MY APPLICATION. I ain't a sales rep. I ain't anybody. Just some dude that loves bikes.

I'm good with that! Go have fun...

Whew! Fun day! Tested the oil a little! :))) from what I can find it is mostly a specialty proposition for all of the above stated reasons! I spoke with a nice informative gentleman down at the dealer that said you would be able to find these oils, but usually only at our through a dealer like a bike or atv shop:

Silkolene 4T race
Motul 300 V
Bel Ray EXS 4T

He also said that just watching consumption of the product it is people that are investigating what's goin on inside their engine that turn to the good stuff. He said time and again its a customer with a bike like a Ducati or a well built motor gets that kind of care or even attention. So it makes sense. What I see backs that up. What research I have done also backs it up. Ties back to some highly technical courses I've taken. Dangit! I think we nailed it!

* Last updated by: Cblast on 7/20/2013 @ 12:11 AM *