OCI, not when but why?

[Grumpy Bear]

11 hours ago, newdude said:

So to my question, why not run a Dexos 2 spec oil in all the gas products? 

 

I doubt I have the full answer, but it is more than just SA content. Gen2 fluids have a MUCH higher HTHS target. Gen 1 for a 5W30 has a 2.9 minimum HTHS while Gen 2 limit is a minimum 3.5 HTHS. This is the number that determines, in part, fuel economy. Recently even 0W and 5W40 oils HTHS for gas motors has been reduced from 3.5 to 2.9 to help meet EPA fuel numbers for motors that 'call for' this grade. So, in those earlier switches back and forth on track day, that was centered around emissions and economy. Nothing to do with reliability and longevity. You can run GEN 2 now and always could. 

 

Remember this too. Limits on SA and calcium for that matter, only matter in motors that are using more than 0.05% oil to fuel. These things matter when oil gets into the chamber in a large enough quantity. GM knows that. To fix it would require letting go of the idea that a quart in a thousand is NORMAL. They will not bend on this. that would cost them reputation, warranty $$$$ both now and retroactively. Couple of lawsuits still out on this.  

[customboss]

21 hours ago, newdude said:

 

 

So I've got a question.  Dexos 1 Gen 3 is approaching Dexos 2 levels of SA.  Dexos 2 oils (which are gas and diesel under 8600 GVWR spec) are SA of 0.8%.

 

2019 GM changed the LT1/LT4 Camaro/Corvette engines to run on Mobil 1 ESP Formula 0w40 which is a Dexos 2 spec oil.  Prior to this for track use they wanted the 5w30 Dexos 1 drained out, switch it to a 15w50 Mobil 1 for track use and then immediately drain that out and go back to the 5w30. 

 

They now spec the M1 ESP Formula 0w40 as an oil that can be used street and track and I assume that's because its low SA (and perhaps some other strengths to the additive blend?).  

 

So to my question, why not run a Dexos 2 spec oil in all the gas products?  Or more importantly, in their gas turbo products?  If SA is of concern and Dexos 1 G3 is now 0.1% off of Dexos 2 SA, why don't they just go full Dexos 2 spec?  Its a gas and diesel oil that's designed for emissions protection.

 

Here's a Dexos 1 chart I've found:

GM Dexos1 Gen 3 Engine Oil Specification | Chevron Oronite (Global)

 

 

 

Here's a Dexos 2 spec chart I found:

GM dexos2 (lubrizol.com)

 

 

newdude, good question.  

 

Grumpy's comments are spot on for the stressed viscosity of a chemistry. However if an engine design doesn't require a particular limit on HTHS or more accurately design film thickness then using a lubricant with more HTHS or film doesn't help. It can even inhibit heat removal and cause hot spots in high heat/pressure zones needlessly. 

 

The GM recommendation for the 0w40 ESP is based on new XOM tech that Infineum and XOM designed focused using phenolic additives and metallocene PAO base oils.  The original recommendation to remove  DEXOS approved 5w30 for Mobil1 15w50 was because the 5w30 would permanently shear AND GM metallurgy was weak in valvetrain for those HP engines. 

 

When it comes to licensing of engine oils ideally the GM DEXOS demands are to provide a better floor of protection and performance and force blenders to stop formulating to a minimum that API allows. 

 

Dispersants, friction reducing additives, and viscosity index improvers are all tailored to a base oil set and as we can see in the graphs GM keeps demanding better base oils.  The base oil is THE KEY.  It has to hand in glove with the additives and additives for compression engines are not tailored to spark engines.   XOM is tricking the crap out of infineum additives that behave like base oils. Using their high quality but mass produced base oil cuts they can almost make money on the formulations, especially when they test a formula to a standard license.  Marketing gets involved here and few oil companies want a one size fits all approach although at my last employer I pushed for that.  Valvoline and Chevron have relationships with that OEM  and are diligently trying to make engine oils for HD applications that can crossover for a fleet at a reasonable cost so we see Valvoline ONE SOURCE and Chevron DELO 600 which are capable of being used in nat gas and diesel engines safely and effectively, not a small achievement.  Sadly spark IC engines using gasoline or ethanol are different. 

 

Why I am reluctant to test the DELO 600 10w30 without mixing it with the Havoline Pro Rs ( GRP III+ and 25% estolides from Novvi)  when I know it would reduce deposits in a spark engine BUT its based on Chevrons GRP II oils they must sell.  Mix TBD if I decide that test. 

 

So aside from the viscosity HTHS floor for Dexos1 gen 3 and Dexos 2 dispersancy is an issue, friction reduction that lasts, and US IC spark engines currently NOT HAVING a GPF vs DPF are real considerations.  The Dexos 2 formulation would have to be evaluated before I would choose a DEXOS2 vs a Dexos 1 Gen 3 formulation.  Knowing those particulars would be difficult because the oil companies with Valvoline One Source being an exception won't step out to guarantee it. 

 

Hair splitting answer because marketing is splitting hairs for profit and functionality. 

 

The L3B and its new derivatives is VERY COMPRESSION engine like so you might be on to something except for the fuels differences. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[diyer2]

One question.

All this technical mumbo jumbo comes down to if you use a qualified oil and change it, it works, agreed.

Lots of engines without problems by following this simple method.

[customboss]

3 minutes ago, diyer2 said:

One question.

All this technical mumbo jumbo comes down to if you use a qualified oil and change it, it works, agreed.

Lots of engines without problems by following this simple method.

Not always is the honest answer and thats why newdude asked a specific technical question.  Thats not a question, you made a statement that is true for 99% of the posters and readers here.  After that there is the 1% that want service, quality, benefit, and value. Not to feel good and limit grey matter spinning.....

 

I get ya diyer2 but there are folks that want the best for a good price or value.  I get technical when folks ask for it. As an observer you'll just have to look away....LOL  

[Grumpy Bear]

I knew I didn't have the whole answer.

 

So here is the fly in the ointment on HTHS. These new oils are supposed to be backward compatible. When they change the spec for the oil, they don't change the spec for the motor retroactively. So now you have a new oil who's stressed viscosity is insufficient for the old design.

 

As far as creating hot spots. Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't. There is a simple test for this I was taught while in the business and I've displayed in these forums. There is also an operating variable that has more influence over viscosity than does the SAE grade. 

 

You have to measure the bulk oil temperature and you have to do that under the same ambient temperatures and operating conditions. IF you go up a grade and the temperature goes down, the viscosity was not enough to begin with and the change adds wear protection. If it goes up, by how much. If a few degrees, all you sacrifice is economy. If more than a few THEN it's a bad idea. No one size fits on to this. 

 

Secondly and more importantly, viscosity is a function of temperature, and that bulk temperature varies by load and engine speed and by enough to move it as much as two SAE grades. Reason for track day oil changes  

 

Even in my current set up I can run 45 mph on a cold day and never see bulk temps get over 188 F and I can also run 55 mph in M4 without a load on a hot day and run that temp up over 250F. 62-degree delta. 

 

Until @customboss brought up Delo 600 I had forgotten the once seen specs on the add pack for this oil and I rescind the run Gen2 comment. He is dead on. All current tests and claims are marketing and the amount of reduction in some very basic numbers like TBN WILL have a major impact on OCI until some third-party testing is in the bag. Of course, we may not get a choice if shelves empty of the things we need. What a way to run a ship. 

[Grumpy Bear]

On 12/3/2022 at 9:56 AM, KARNUT said:

Amsoil recommendations. We were using conventional prior. Yes, they tested. My father had many years experience on wear and tear, he initially set the time line on maintaining. Break downs with equipment and trucks were rare. He was a hard sell on changing the OCI. Me to. Yup, me too. The equipment made quite a bit of money daily. Break downs were expensive. 

 

Does this mean AMSOIL INC. tested your equipment? 

[KARNUT]

8 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

 

Does this mean AMSOIL INC. tested your equipment? 

I can’t recall if we tested or our Amsoil dealer tested. It was early 80s we were in the field 7 days a week working building our business. My brother worked in our shop he handled building and repairing equipment. My brother was anxious to try new things. We were skeptical. I was the the initial tester bringing in samples. We became sellers years later when we began selling our patented equipment. By then Amsoil was in all our gas and diesel engines. Hydraulics and gear oils too. Our shop sells Amsoil still among others. I remember in the early 90 my brother had filters mounted to his inner fender on his big daddy ram truck. It was super charged. He went 50k miles without changing the oil. It would have went farther. He blew the head gaskets by increasing boost. He was a limit pusher. 

[Grumpy Bear]

2 hours ago, KARNUT said:

I can’t recall if we tested or our Amsoil dealer tested.

 

Point is you tested and used tests as a guide. Great! Better yet you were able to lower service and repair costs.  It should translate into longer unit life. Did you find that the case with non-leased equipment? Ya got me on the edge of my chair now.  

 

If yes, I expect you had other 'tax' reasons for continuing the short lease programs? 

 

 

 

 

[KARNUT]

We had lots of salespeople stop by our shop. One guy showed up dragging an engine on a trailer. He was pushing an additive. He fired up the engine lowered the oil pan. It ran the whole time while he was pushing his additive. During our conventional oil days running additives such as STP and slick 50 was the norm. My father loved putting diesel fuel treatment in everything even gas. Funny as all that may sound nothing broke. He was big on oil changes. When he hit 250 hrs on his machine. It got changed right now. Changing to synthetic was a big deal for him. I remember in the early 70s his oil supplier pushed a new oil. Crystal 50 I believe. He bought cases. An oil change party came soon after. 10 vehicles involved. My father ran the most miles between jobs. Not too long after I heard him pull in. In he walks I still hear his truck screaming. He’s pissed. He had a brick on the accelerator. The oil clogged up. Apparently you’re supposed to use it for racing then drain while still warm. He was skeptical to change when it came to oil. 

[KARNUT]

11 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

 

Point is you tested and used tests as a guide. Great! Better yet you were able to lower service and repair costs.  It should translate into longer unit life. Did you find that the case with non-leased equipment? Ya got me on the edge of my chair now.  

 

If yes, I expect you had other 'tax' reasons for continuing the short lease programs? 

 

 

 

 

We didn’t lease trucks or equipment. We bought year end model trucks. We kept some as spare’s rotating out the oldest. If I said lease somewhere I was mistaken. Our trucks stayed new looking. We had clearing machines so the trucks had clean paths. Blankets on seats, carpets for mats. Even extra shoes to drive in. We worked hard and treasure our equipment and trucks.

[KARNUT]

13 minutes ago, KARNUT said:

We didn’t lease trucks or equipment. We bought year end model trucks. We kept some as spare’s rotating out the oldest. If I said lease somewhere I was mistaken. Our trucks stayed new looking. We had clearing machines so the trucks had clean paths. Blankets on seats, carpets for mats. Even extra shoes to drive in. We worked hard and treasure our equipment and trucks.

Perhaps I should elaborate a little more. I was the demo, hauling delivery person of the business. I drove the most miles. My one brother was the shop guy he kept vehicles about 10 years. Usually highly modified. My other brother and father may have gone a little longer if they like a certain truck. And they were write offs.

[customboss]

32 minutes ago, KARNUT said:

We had lots of salespeople stop by our shop. One guy showed up dragging an engine on a trailer. He was pushing an additive. He fired up the engine lowered the oil pan. It ran the whole time while he was pushing his additive. During our conventional oil days running additives such as STP and slick 50 was the norm. My father loved putting diesel fuel treatment in everything even gas. Funny as all that may sound nothing broke. He was big on oil changes. When he hit 250 hrs on his machine. It got changed right now. Changing to synthetic was a big deal for him. I remember in the early 70s his oil supplier pushed a new oil. Crystal 50 I believe. He bought cases. An oil change party came soon after. 10 vehicles involved. My father ran the most miles between jobs. Not too long after I heard him pull in. In he walks I still hear his truck screaming. He’s pissed. He had a brick on the accelerator. The oil clogged up. Apparently you’re supposed to use it for racing then drain while still warm. He was skeptical to change when it came to oil. 

ALLPROOF synthetic was a really high quality early 70's synthetic. 

[Grumpy Bear]

 

Something I noticed in the chart @newdude posted was the base oil swap for Gen3 fluids.

 

This will be the first time I recall that a MAXIMUM blend percentage specification will be imposed on a Group II fluid. About time. Interesting note as well on permissible saturates content of Group III. Gen3 spec is 5% higher than the API Group III spec. Group III+/GTL will hit that number as well as Group IV PAO or many but not all Group V's. 

 

This is not a huge move in practice on ash. 0.05-0.08% absolute. Nor a huge move on deposit control. 25 mg. Looks good as a percentage though 

 

NOACK is hardly worth a mention.

 

Biggest move is on SPI tolerance. Several orders of magnitude. 

 

[customboss]

2 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

 

Something I noticed in the chart @newdude posted was the base oil swap for Gen3 fluids.

 

This will be the first time I recall that a MAXIMUM blend percentage specification will be imposed on a Group II fluid. About time. Interesting note as well on permissible saturates content of Group III. Gen3 spec is 5% higher than the API Group III spec. Group III+/GTL will hit that number as well as Group IV PAO or many but not all Group V's. 

 

This is not a huge move in practice on ash. 0.05-0.08% absolute. Nor a huge move on deposit control. 25 mg. Looks good as a percentage though 

 

NOACK is hardly worth a mention.

 

Biggest move is on SPI tolerance. Several orders of magnitude. 

 

Base oil = quality that lasts.  GM is forcing formulators hand with GRP II max. 

[Grumpy Bear]

5 hours ago, customboss said:

Base oil = quality that lasts.  GM is forcing formulators hand with GRP II max. 

 

As true as this is the motivation is 'other'. 

 

Adds are sacrificial. Check. 

Higher saturation levels equal greater oxidation resistance. Check. 

This so lower antioxidant levels (organic metals) are lower SAPS, is lower SPI.  

 

But you have to convince the user that the condemnation levels that same industry trained him to trigger on are no longer valid. 

Problem is...taint so.  But you can make it appear so with a little game of Where is Waldo marketing and miseducation.

 

Nothing new in that game. Been played in campaigns against POE for decades by big oil.

 

The whole OCI, base oil selection, additive type shuffle will never change the fact that oil degrades with use. That the 20F doubling equation remains fully in force if but at differing initiation temperatures. 

 

No, the only real THING going on here is moving the ACCEPTABEL DEGREE OF DEGRADATION/CONTAMINATION to suit an agenda that is not centered on engine life. As mother use to say, "Each old crow thinks hers the blackest". OEM has an agenda centered on warranty cost. EPA on emissions/fuel economy/foreign oil dependance. Oil and chemical industry on profit and NO ONE has the wee bit of interest in the consumer other than how to take his money. 

 

The industry is changing. All parts of it and consumers are hanging onto dead horses because dead horses are what they know. 

 

Edited December 6, 2022 by Grumpy Bear