OCI, not when but why?

Grumpy Bear · January 19

7 hours ago, VicFirth said:

US20170029734A1 - Lubricant for preventing and removing carbon deposits in internal combustion engines - Google Patents

I just read the entire patent. What a wealth of information. Certainly narrows the number of choices I would consider.

VicFirth · January 20

Based on the patent I'd say the following oils meet the criteria in no particular order:

HPL - III/PAO/POE/AN

RL - PAO/POE

Torco - III/IV/POE/AN

Valvoline Premium Blue Restore - PAO/V

Amsoil SS - III/PAO/V

RLI - ?

Edited January 21 by VicFirth

VicFirth · January 23

Update on R&P - TBN is 6.33

Grumpy Bear · January 23

4 hours ago, VicFirth said:

Update on R&P - TBN is 6.33

So 1.64 acid number, base number 6.33. Puts the basement around 3 TBN.

Chevron has this to say:

Used Engine Oil Analysis TBN vs TAN | Chevron Lubricants (US)

Generally, a TBN value for a new engine oil can range anywhere from about 6.0 – 13.0 mgKOH/g. For decades, it has been used as more or less an industry standard for determining when engine oil should be changed. In the past, when the base number became depleted to or beyond a predetermined condemning limit as indicated by used oil analysis, it was generally concluded that the oil should be drained and replaced. But beginning in 2006, developments in the heavy-duty industry would lead to changes in conventional thinking in the field of used engine oil analysis. First, diesel fuel sulfur levels were decreased to just 15 ppm for on-highway engines and combustion became more efficient, resulting in less soot entering the engine oil and a reduction in hard acids. Prior to this change, a fall in TBN would be followed by an increase in total acid number (TAN) and a subsequent increase in bearing metals: lead and copper, indicating bearing corrosion from acid. Today, however, when TBN decreases we no longer see an increase in TAN and wear metals.

I bold typed that to make a point. You have to look to know. If you are not getting both numbers, you are flying blind. 50% reduction in TBN is still valid if TBN is all you are watching.

Secondly. The rate of decline even in the same motor is dependent of the oils total chemistry. Base and adds considered. And it is not linear. And is not constant over the life of the motor.

VicFirth · January 26

Valvoline™ Global Operations Unveils Revolutionary Motor Oil: Restore & Protect – JobbersWorld

Grumpy Bear · January 26

15 minutes ago, VicFirth said:

Valvoline™ Global Operations Unveils Revolutionary Motor Oil: Restore & Protect – JobbersWorld

Would be handy to know the definition of the length of a USE.

OnTheReel · January 26

Found it at the price I was hoping to pay…under $30 per jug when you buy three.

https://www.amazon.com/Valvoline-Restore-Protect-Synthetic-5W-30/dp/B0CQ347YVN?source=ps-sl-shoppingads-lpcontext&ref_=fplfs&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&th=1

Seems like a pretty good value if it can deliver what it claims.

Grumpy Bear · January 26

7 minutes ago, OnTheReel said:

Found it at the price I was hoping to pay…under $30 per jug when you buy three.

https://www.amazon.com/Valvoline-Restore-Protect-Synthetic-5W-30/dp/B0CQ347YVN?source=ps-sl-shoppingads-lpcontext&ref_=fplfs&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&th=1

Seems like a pretty good value if it can deliver what it claims.

Come on Wally World.

And price after shipping is????

Wait, just saw it. FREE to 1/30/2024.

Edited January 26 by Grumpy Bear

OnTheReel · January 26

Just now, Grumpy Bear said:

What a little competition brings to the table. About time. Come on Wally World. I see Amazon is still $13 a quart for singles. WT* is the matter with people.

Walmart is carrying it but it’s the full $39.99.

The $13 price for a quart is maddening because I have a 6 quart sump. Would be nice to buy another quart instead of another jug. This is why I have half-spent jugs of oil everywhere.

Grumpy Bear · January 28

On 1/25/2024 at 10:09 PM, OnTheReel said:

Walmart is carrying it but it’s the full $39.99.

The $13 price for a quart is maddening because I have a 6 quart sump. Would be nice to buy another quart instead of another jug. This is why I have half-spent jugs of oil everywhere.

Just bought a jug for makeup oil. Price per quart is nuts.

OnTheReel · January 28

10 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Just bought a jug for makeup oil. Price per quart is nuts.

Sure is. I thought it might just be that high online because of the shipping cost baked in but nope…still overpriced locally too.

Feel like we are seeing the death of buying oil by the quart. Oddly enough Sam’s and Costco still have quarts by the case, but gallons and 5 quart jugs dominate the shelves pretty much everywhere else. Even Farm & Fleet.

Grumpy Bear · January 28

On 1/11/2024 at 2:16 PM, VicFirth said:

Restore + Protect – Valvoline (valvolineglobal.com)

Valvoline™ Global Operations Unveils Revolutionary Motor Oil: Restore & Protect (prnewswire.com)

Official release.

Dizzy's oil consumption was very tolerable running the Shell Rotella T6 5W40 and HPL EC40 barely moving off the mark over a 2K mile change interval. I had two changes of COSTCO Kirkland Signature 5W30 to burn off (pun intended) and it did not disappoint. Tripling consumption.

That out of the way I charged the Valvoline Restore and Protect 5W30. In the first 400 miles it consumed a half pint. Then over the next 375 miles......nothing. These have been some really hard miles on her. Extreme cold, long warmups and short trips. And I did install the next size larger orifice in the breather to alleviate some cold weather water issues which worked but does put more draw on the system. A variable I had not intended but... Just a single point of data means nothing. So, no hopes. She's got 233,333 on her and long in the tooth.

Edited January 31 by Grumpy Bear

customboss · January 28

On 1/20/2024 at 6:42 AM, VicFirth said:

Based on the patent I'd say the following oils meet the criteria in no particular order:

HPL - III/PAO/POE/AN

RL - PAO/POE

Torco - III/IV/POE/AN

Valvoline Premium Blue Restore - PAO/V

Amsoil SS - III/PAO/V

RLI - ?

RLI = PAO/V hydridized veg bases not synthetic.

Grumpy Bear · January 30

Destructive Testing on YOUR Vehicle

Every once in a while, I hear someone really smart say something really dumb and this video (below) is an example.

As you view this video ask yourself how much preventable damage you are willing to allow your machine to undergo.

For starters, he tries to make a point that the crossover point is based on the PH of aqueous solutions thus has no bearing on that of mineral solutions. Problem with this is that corrosion is an issue of excess hydrogen ions, corrosion, or deficient hydrogen ions, caustic embrittlement. While aqueous v mineral base sounds line apples and oranges excess H+ is plain old excess H+. Rubbish. Secondly the actual acids ARE aqueous. Nitric and Sulfuric acids from the dissociation of Sulfur and Nitric combustion byproducts with ever present water of both oil and fuel.

That he claims the test is "notoriously' has poor Unrepeatability and reproducibility. They extrapolated that with an assumption the bias is ALWAY in the same direction for all cases (2), which is not true. But his point on that is not without merit. It's just that most of that 'random' results are NULLIFIED by using the 50% rule. Crossover is more generous yet. 60% percent is dangerous. Copper corrosion test to 4A or greater are destructive. Also dampened by ISO standards and the human element is smaller than suggested.

And yet folks it is an acceptable ASTM method used to produce this showing increase wear metal actually BEFORE the cross over point:

Shortly before making this claim, he ADMITS at about 2 minutes into the video that this method "Gives a large Safety Margin" Hum....like that is a bad thing. It's a great thing!

Then he makes a statement that there "Isn't a test for the depletion of the corrosion inhibitor". Also, not true. What he should have said is, "There is not DIRECT" measurement of the depletion of corrosion inhibitor." Does that sound like I'm splitting hairs? Any idea how much science is done by indirect measurement? Like theoretical physics! The graph above is an example of indirect measurement of that very ask. To explain....

He suggested that we plot (TAN V TBN) V Copper (or Iron) PPM wear metals. And find the point where the copper wear metals increase 'happens' v the TBN/TAN relationship. That kids is called "DISTRUCTIVE TESTING" and assumes that there is an ACCEPTABLE level of damage to be endured with EVERY oil change interval to extract the absolute maximum value from you OIL dollar. When in reality the idea is to extract the maximum value from the power trains LIFE.

He further suggests you run copper corrosion test to find YOUR limit of acceptable destruction. Really?

My limit is zero IF it can be avoided. 50% depletion is just entering the TAN 'troublesome" range. I'm good with 1a/1/a 3 and 24 hour.

Any idea what ZDDP was FIRST used for before discovering it's antiwear properties? You guessed it. Corrosion Inhibitor. Also, a GREAT antioxidant. Versatile.

Not all his stuff if junk. Just use you noggin to ferret out the rational from the marketing.