I have been wondering what will be " for lack of better " a benchmark trend of sorts for the new GF-5 oils .

Since lowering corrosive wear is one of the list items for GF-5 , what other newer additive package technology might we see and what older additives will be shoved out the door ?

Esters to enhance friction coefficients of low cost shelve oils ?

EDIT - modified topic

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Motorbike,

Wow, nice to hear from you again Motorbike, as its been a while!!!

I agree, the new GF-5 will make for even more debate, discussion, deboggle, and such, but at least according to the new stats that they have put on the site, even rum dum oils that are GF-5 oils will be top notch compared to oils of just 5 years ago.

I can't wait!!!

Deposit control is supposed to improve also for GF5.

I don't know the answer to your question but I'd like to know. Maybe bruce can chime in.

Motorbike, what are your thoughts on the Valvoline claim? It's based on the Seq IVA in which an oil must score lower than 90 um of wear.

I don't doubt Valvolines claim of better anti-wear and think it about has to be something along the lines of being developed towards
the GF-5 and wanting to lower copper corrosion even further .

Another thought for GF-5 dino's,overbased magnesium replacing some of the higher ash calcium could trend into the lower cost pcmo'c just like they have the euro synthetics and CJ-4 lubes. Perhaps we will see increased usage of barium sulphonate as well along with a ester to help modify the friction coefficients . Something akin to some of the aftermarket ATF additives possibly in terms of an ester"s" .

quote:

Sulfurized Esters - aka "polysulfides" replacing polyisobutenes and sulfurized fats ,ect

No sulfur is limited in the newer oils so none will be used

Max sulfur for GF-4 was 0.5 for the 0w- and 5w-30 and the 10w-30 was 0.7 sulfur "total mass"

For GF-5 the 0w and 5w remains same as GF-4 but the 10w has been lowered to 0.5 .

Dispersancy will be upped to aid the new deposit limits and since the nitrogen containing dispersants get to the engine seals, parameters have been modified . Big difference in max alowable oil pick-up screen blockage as well .

So ,there's alot going on with GF-5 . Some of the problems were tackled with GF-4 in that lower zddp levels brought around increased use of passivators to aid in protecting against pb/cu corrosion as needed with use of organic FM's in a few of the formulations. The FM's that could otherwise be agressive towards lead .

That new phosphorus retention and some testing showing long chain zddp had over 95% retention while short chain had a little under 80% retention so it might force all add packs to use at least some moly ,dithiocarbamates, sulfur compounds and boron for extra anti-wear where some GF-4 formulations were without moly ,ect.

Just typing but who knows . Low cost analysis never did tell the whole story about a formula and it sure won't with GF-5 .

The phosphorus min max for GF-4 was .06 - .08

For GF-5 the minimum is .06 and maximum is .07 . A narrow window huh ?

JAMA was concerned about timing chain wear and elongation from soot . It appears they settled on this simply because of engines that use timing chains . It was going to be a .05 maximum phosphorus limit from what i can decipher .

I guess Valvoline is referring to this "new" ZDP??

www.roushoil.com

quote:

NOTE: ROUSH® Motor Oil is one of the only full synthetics on the market today which incorporates an advanced anti-wear additive which keeps higher levels of zinc/phosphorus in the engine where it belongs, instead of on the catalytic converter where it can damage the emissions system.

It's also made it's way into Synpower.

Looks like XOM, among others, think the wear prevention of GF4 is very good and not in need of a change for GF5.

OEM's have made great improvements in engine durability.

The only significant improvement I see with GF5 is deposit prevention for turbos. Mobil 1 is exceptional in that area already. As are many other high end synthetics.

Increased resistance to oxidation is also targeted along with lower deposits .

In regards to one of the newer soluable Titanium additives when a formulated oil was "topped" with it two TEOST results came down in deposits from right at 40mg to 20mg and 29mg . That was by topping with 80 & 200ppm of the Ti respectively .

Key thing there was if they formulated the oil with different key components that work synergisticly better with the Ti then no MoDTC would be needed . Only the GMO .

Evidently the Ti additive reduced wear scar by 50% in a bench test as well . Unless a bunch of hype .

So , i want an oil with 200ppm of Ti and not a drop of MoDTC, salycilate detergent used in it , SL levels of ZDDP and most of all it needs to mildly burn the nose like an acid when popping the cap on the container - then all will be good to go , even with a group III base oil if it's just gotta be that way

Now see, I agree with you motorbike, the oil just doesn't seem worth its salt if it doesn't have that rocket fuel smell that knocks you back a few steps!!!

Your particular ingredient list looks good too. Hopefully we can get a good blend like that with the GF-5's.

Dad2lei , a friend told me Pennzoil dino does not use moly now . That seems a step towards GF-5 but all will be built at price point ... sadly not much changes there .

I want to see a new tier in relation to groupII low cost PCMO oils that says in big bold letters .

NOW EXCEEDS ASTM D-7109

quote:

Originally posted by Motorbike:

I want to see a new tier in relation to groupII low cost PCMO oils that says in big bold letters .

NOW EXCEEDS ASTM D-7109

Which just might tag along with the new GM Global Specification oils . The D-7109 takes excess of 90 Orbahn Shear passes vs 30 passes for GF-4 and other HDEO's that are not E7 spec'd.

Here is a Castrol 5w-30 oil thats run through the Orbahn ringer in that respect .



More about the GM Global Spec oils here

Industry Oil Standards like API and ACEA are result of compromises

and here

GM chooses long drain oil over friction modifed oil that won't make the miles needed

and GM might even bypass API liscensing programs.

http://www.noln.net/inside_fea...height=500&width=600

One more link concerning the GM Global Spec A-B engine oils along with --- API royalty fee's and the likes .

http://www.imakenews.com/lng/e_article001342908.cfm

Thanks MB.

What do you think of the Ca/Na additive combo?

5w/10w30 < 10% for Noack, GM 4718M approved. Improved deposit control. Now uses Na.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Buster,

Only a guess but if the oil has only 20-30ppm Na it's coming from an additional "topper" added to the regular D/D package .

As you know , a company that is not restrained by corporate policy can pick and choose from the additive pack suppliers and use mixtures of what X and Y companies offer.

Can't forget the base oils and even the additive pack carrier oil role as being an important building block for oils like 4178 and others needing that low amount of deposits.I believe all around for additive carriers and other dual role uses ,there will be increased usage of various esters for GF-5 . I see some in current formulations .

Very true.

http://www.getg.com/faq/index.php

G-Oil?

It seems that additives have advanced a lot to the point that less and less esters are being used in motor oils. Some oils are meeting GM 4718M w/o any esters at all.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Buster,

As much about tomorrows engine standards as well. GTL's and solvency needs,decreasing the interaction of zddp with the dispersants at the increased levels that will be needed while reducing phos, even reducing Fe wear in the Sequence IVA test from aprox 60ppm in a 5w-30 group III reference oil to right at 10ppm which shows the reduced friction coefficient of ester fluids and or ester type add pack components .

Just a matter of time