PAO/POE Research by MSDS

[KARNUT]

Special oil for a special engine. Some say. But even though some say the only thing that can go wrong with this special engine is. Going by  the recommended oil changes of this special engine. By the special manufacturer of the special engine. Isn’t that special? At least GM can some things right, right? Someday soon hopefully. Maybe the oil change minders in the engine will be updated next. According to the experts we should ignore those. Who new?

[Grumpy Bear]

And there's my cyber stalker.

Know how I can tell? I post and his is the next post. He's blocked and knows it and yet??

[KARNUT]

Ain’t I special. I must be. Says I’m blocked. And replies to my post. I just point out the obvious. Some people can’t handle the truth. Says the Frankenstein engine is the bomb. If only you ignore their oil change intervals. If only you flush, change oil repeat as needed. Often half the recommended. Save money on gas. Spend it on oil changes and flushing. Those silly people who’s Frankensteins break down at 5K should have changed their oil at 2K. I’ve never seen so many oil related post by one person. Somebody needs to say dude you’re barking up the wrong tree. It’s the engine. 

[Grumpy Bear]

Boom, there he is again.

 

 

 

 

 

[Grumpy Bear]

https://www.lelubricants.com/wp-content/uploads/LE-MSDS/LE-8531-EN-AGHS.pdf

 

There is a link to Lubrication Engineers Monolec Tetra-Syn Full Synthetic Engine Oil 

 

Under Section 3

 

CAS 64742-54-7 is 80-90% of this lubricant. 

• TSCA Definition 2019: A complex combination of hydrocarbons obtained by treating a petroleum fraction with hydrogen in the presence of a catalyst. It consists of hydrocarbons having carbon numbers predominantly in the range of C20 through C50 and produces a finished oil of at least 100 SUS at 100.degree.F (19cSt at 40.degree.C). It contains a relatively large proportion of saturated hydrocarbons.

Seems EVERYTHING and ANYTHING is now a FULL SYNTHETIC and there is no regulation at all. This stuff is a straight up Group II conventional mineral oil. Not even a II+.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[diyer2]

So Redline HD or MPT 30 K are true 100% synthetic.

[Grumpy Bear]

40 minutes ago, diyer2 said:

So Redline HD or MPT 30 K are true 100% synthetic.

 

Yes

 

MPT 30K is multi PAO (up to three) and multi POE and/or Diester (up to three) to reach a blend that requires zero VI improvers so that it's multi-grade is met 'on the blend'. It will not shear thin like an oil that uses these polymer VI improvers. It also has the highest HTHS of any oil in it's grade I've run across yet. But I haven't seen it all. Talking with them they are the most transparent of ANY oil blender and will give you ANYTHING you ask for except the recipe card. 

 

Red Line HP uses fewer individual base components. Leans harder on the PAO but contains a healthy dose of NPG Polyol Ester. Enough to maximize friction reduction and and oxidation resistance. A bit of VI help in some grades but even that has an ester carrier oil. It is also why it is a bit cheaper than MPT 30K. Just a less complicated chemistry but still true to it's claim. I have the most experience with this oil and never been disappointed when I pull a motor down. It has the second highest HTHS of all the oils I've looked at. I have a 20+ year history with this manufacture. 

 

Both of these oils carry more ZZDP and Calcium than the SN limits so I would not use them in a cat equipped oil burner that is using more than a quart in say 5K. But if you motor is in that .03% to .05% per gallon of fuel usage range or tighter.... Both of these oils also have a TBN of at least 10 and I personally would have no issue running them down to 4-5. In Pepper RL ending at 5K at a TBN of just over 4. 

 

If you have an oil burner you might try TRIAX SRT is a DEXOS 1 Gen 2 'compliant' that is a solid true Group III/PAO blend with an Ester chaser and an SN+ additive package. Only Group III I have found so far that uses Esters as an aniline suppressant. A true Group III done the right way. It does however have a TBN of only 8, just like AC-Delco and that is on the stronger acid test UOA labs don't use so a VOA from someone like Blackstone would show it as 6. My gut says this one is good for 3K. I have zero experience with this oil and everything is based on the SDS and email research. 

[garageman402]

On 6/25/2021 at 8:47 AM, Grumpy Bear said:

 

Cover? Trick question, right? It's a fair question. If you mean is it licensed? No. If you mean does it meet or exceed the DEXOS1Ge2 certification requirements. Like Red Line HP, no. Oh it meets or exceeds any physical spec BUT contains too much ZZDP to be called an SN or SN+ or SP. But if the question is exactly as asked. Covered. Yes...it covers it like a blanket. 

 

You've fought the licensing argument long enough to know what's what. Right? 

 

To be clear, due to the higher ZZDP levels of some of these oils I talk about they are NOT recommended for motors that use allot of oil. But tight motors? I had a 1998 and 2003 Hondas the lived on Red Line HP each for a quarter million each by sale time with zero Cat or O2 issues. 

 

https://mptindustries.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Motor_Oil_Product_Sheet_final.pdf

 

Hi,

 This is my first post here, I picked this comment to reply to. I am referring to licensing.

 

I have been researching Triax SRT which you have mentioned on this site. I saw a Virgin oil analysis (.jpg attached) showing very high phosphorous, and it is not Dexos1 Gen2 licensed, but it is SN+. You state both of those approvals require lower ZDDP (due to the phosphorus content). So how can this oil be SN+ approved? 

 

I also read a UOA of this oil in a VW where the wear numbers were high, and the HTHS was not high enough for VW approval. Also a Viscosity of 9.9 was too low for VW.  I think it was the SRT not the Euro formula.

 

I do have UOAs (.pdf attached) for the Euro formula in a 2020 Ford F-150, showing lower Ph and Moly levels. Would this indicate the Euro formula is more in line with Dexos1 Gen2?

 

Thanks for any help

uoa.pdf

[Grumpy Bear]

4 hours ago, garageman402 said:

Hi,

 This is my first post here, I picked this comment to reply to. I am referring to licensing.

 

I have been researching Triax SRT which you have mentioned on this site. I saw a Virgin oil analysis (.jpg attached) showing very high phosphorous, and it is not Dexos1 Gen2 licensed, but it is SN+. You state both of those approvals require lower ZDDP (due to the phosphorus content). So how can this oil be SN+ approved? 

 

I also read a UOA of this oil in a VW where the wear numbers were high, and the HTHS was not high enough for VW approval. Also a Viscosity of 9.9 was too low for VW.  I think it was the SRT not the Euro formula.

 

I do have UOAs (.pdf attached) for the Euro formula in a 2020 Ford F-150, showing lower Ph and Moly levels. Would this indicate the Euro formula is more in line with Dexos1 Gen2?

 

Thanks for any help

uoa.pdf 202.13 kB · 0 downloads

 

Loopholes, that's how: 

 

https://www.fuelsandlubes.com/fli-article/exemption-phosphorus-limits-longer-apply-2020/

 

An exemption in phosphorus was granted to pre SP oils that also carry a C*, a diesel rating that permits the exemption to be applied. As of May 2020 SP and newer classifications will loose this exemption.

 

SN+, the PLUS has to do with LSPI thus calcium levels. No effect on ZDDP. 

 

DEXOS license. They way you ask leads me to think you are looking for a number closer to the license requirement but not actually a licensed oil? Most of that license has to do with NOACK levels which any major oil can meet. It is much to do about nothing IMHO. I don't bother myself with it. Stick with a major...

 

I pay zero attention to others UOA's. Not my dog, not my bone and has nothing to do with my dog or bone. I have no idea how they treat it or their level of integrity. Hint: if you choose to ignore this, and you will. divide the reported level by the number of thousands of miles to normalize the result. I.E. IF the iron is 20 ppm and the OCI was 10,000 miles divide 20 by 10 = 2. Then when you compare to another that was say 5,000 miles but 15 ppm = 3 ppm you see the lower number was actually a worse result.  Blackstone sometimes will mention this in the notes section to newer customers. 

 

I know of no published data from TRIAX concerning HTHS. It's not something I've ever seen on a lab report from a hired 3rd party like Blackstone. What I do know is that it MUST be at minimum 2.9 cP to get the SAE *W30 designation. If VW want's more then *W40 is their baby.  3.5/3.7 cP minimums depending on the first number. There is also an exception to this in that oils blended with large amounts of PAO or POE/Esters can and do have a much higher HTHS when in the same SAE weight. Remember two things. HTHS is a minimum only spec AND only those with the best numbers will brag about it    

 

Did I miss anything?

 

 

[Grumpy Bear]

19 hours ago, garageman402 said:

Hi,

 This is my first post here, I picked this comment to reply to. I am referring to licensing.

 

I have been researching Triax SRT which you have mentioned on this site. I saw a Virgin oil analysis (.jpg attached) showing very high phosphorous, and it is not Dexos1 Gen2 licensed, but it is SN+. You state both of those approvals require lower ZDDP (due to the phosphorus content). So how can this oil be SN+ approved? 

 

I also read a UOA of this oil in a VW where the wear numbers were high, and the HTHS was not high enough for VW approval. Also a Viscosity of 9.9 was too low for VW.  I think it was the SRT not the Euro formula.

 

I do have UOAs (.pdf attached) for the Euro formula in a 2020 Ford F-150, showing lower Ph and Moly levels. Would this indicate the Euro formula is more in line with Dexos1 Gen2?

 

 

 

Late note: Something important NOBODY looks at is the HTHS in used oil. The minimum set by the SAE is for fresh oil. However the machine cares about what is in the moment and at the present conditions. It does not run on a data sheet or some agency requirement.  So here's a rule of thumb that is pretty darn accurate. 

 

Whatever the percentage of viscosity loss is at 212F (100C) will be the percentage loss in HTHS and NO it does not matter than they are different measurements. 

[garageman402]

17 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

 

Loopholes, that's how: 

 

https://www.fuelsandlubes.com/fli-article/exemption-phosphorus-limits-longer-apply-2020/

 

An exemption in phosphorus was granted to pre SP oils that also carry a C*, a diesel rating that permits the exemption to be applied. As of May 2020 SP and newer classifications will loose this exemption.

 

SN+, the PLUS has to do with LSPI thus calcium levels. No effect on ZDDP. 

 

DEXOS license. They way you ask leads me to think you are looking for a number closer to the license requirement but not actually a licensed oil? Most of that license has to do with NOACK levels which any major oil can meet. It is much to do about nothing IMHO. I don't bother myself with it. Stick with a major...

 

I pay zero attention to others UOA's. Not my dog, not my bone and has nothing to do with my dog or bone. I have no idea how they treat it or their level of integrity. Hint: if you choose to ignore this, and you will. divide the reported level by the number of thousands of miles to normalize the result. I.E. IF the iron is 20 ppm and the OCI was 10,000 miles divide 20 by 10 = 2. Then when you compare to another that was say 5,000 miles but 15 ppm = 3 ppm you see the lower number was actually a worse result.  Blackstone sometimes will mention this in the notes section to newer customers. 

 

I know of no published data from TRIAX concerning HTHS. It's not something I've ever seen on a lab report from a hired 3rd party like Blackstone. What I do know is that it MUST be at minimum 2.9 cP to get the SAE *W30 designation. If VW want's more then *W40 is their baby.  3.5/3.7 cP minimums depending on the first number. There is also an exception to this in that oils blended with large amounts of PAO or POE/Esters can and do have a much higher HTHS when in the same SAE weight. Remember two things. HTHS is a minimum only spec AND only those with the best numbers will brag about it    

 

Did I miss anything?

 

 

Thanks Grumpy, 

 

  That does explain the higher Ph allowed for an SN. So SP will not allow Ph over 850? I know Ph is an integral part of ZDDP, does the Ph actually provide the AW? Or the Z? or both? The only way to get Zinc into an oil is through ZDDP? How about Moly? I recall oils increasing Moly to compensate for lack of Z, is that true?

 

 Agreed that UOAs mean nothing except to the owner of that particular UOA. I would look for a pattern across several UOAs, which, actually is what Blackstone does in their "Universal Averages" column. But you're right, we don't know the history, sample method, etc. I actually got different results sampling from the drain plug during a drain (midstream) than from sucking it out of the dipstick tube.

 

 Yes as far as licensing, I am looking for better AW additives within the scope of the Dexos license parameters. But IIRC, formulators submit their test results for license approval, and the blender CANNOT deviate from that. Different license holders may have different formulas, but they are all restricted on ZDDP. I don't see a great amount of Moly compensating for the reduction of ZDDP, is that what you are alluding to in that the licensing requirements basically ensures the engine's demise when the warranty expires? Even the State of California is discouraging oil changes at less than 7500 miles. 

 

 Triax seems to be pretty good as far as AW. I have it in my 71 402, haven't really run it much since then. I'm wanting to put it in all my vehicles, but worry about cat contamination. I have a 2021 motorhome on a 2020 Chev Express chassis 6.0L with 6670 miles. I changed out the factory fill when I got it at 2330 miles. Yes it's "new" but they drove it here from Indiana. It should be tight still, you think the Triax would pose a threat to the cat? The other vehicle is a 2008 Buick Enclave with 175,000. Oil has diligently been changed usually less than 4000 miles, it may not be tight anymore. Has new cats, just been tuned. 4th vehicle is 2000 Pontiac Montana with 3.4L V6. GM Service Replacement motor has about 70,000. Oil changed very frequently on it, probably average of 1500 miles.

 

 Thanks!!

Edited July 12, 2021 by garageman402

[garageman402]

2 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

 

Late note: Something important NOBODY looks at is the HTHS in used oil. The minimum set by the SAE is for fresh oil. However the machine cares about what is in the moment and at the present conditions. It does not run on a data sheet or some agency requirement.  So here's a rule of thumb that is pretty darn accurate. 

 

Whatever the percentage of viscosity loss is at 212F (100C) will be the percentage loss in HTHS and NO it does not matter than they are different measurements. 

 Grumpy,

 

 Percentage of what? The difference in viscosity at 40C and at 100C?. Or loss through the OCI? Usually with evaporation, the viscosity increases over the life of the oil. So 60cSt to 10cSt is a 83.33% drop, would the HTHS will be expected to drop from 3.0 to 0.5?

 

Edit: Are you referring to viscosity loss due to shearing?

 

 Thanks!!!

Edited July 12, 2021 by garageman402

[garageman402]

On 6/28/2021 at 8:19 AM, Grumpy Bear said:

 

If you have an oil burner you might try TRIAX SRT is a DEXOS 1 Gen 2 'compliant' that is a solid true Group III/PAO blend with an Ester chaser and an SN+ additive package. Only Group III I have found so far that uses Esters as an aniline suppressant. A true Group III done the right way. It does however have a TBN of only 8, just like AC-Delco and that is on the stronger acid test UOA labs don't use so a VOA from someone like Blackstone would show it as 6. My gut says this one is good for 3K. I have zero experience with this oil and everything is based on the SDS and email research. 

 

 People over at BITOG are calling them an "unscrupulous blender"......

[Grumpy Bear]

Site it being difficult. I'll try latter

 

Edited July 12, 2021 by Grumpy Bear

[garageman402]

6 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Site it being difficult. I'll try latter

 

OK!!