LE 8130 oil analyses
03-01-2004, 02:07 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Some info from Kevin Dinwiddie at LE:
First I hope I understand you question. You are wondering why
OK guys, first of all I work for Lubrication Engineers (24 years)and I will not try and sell anyone anything on this sight. A friend told me about this thread and said that I might want to set things straight. First, some of the API classifications are not up to date. For instance the 8530 is ILSAC GF-3, API SL. So you can see that the info that has been posted here is not quite up to date. Don't be fooled by ones that have not heard of the (LE)Lubrication Engineers products. They have been in the commercial industry since 1951 and market their lubes in 60 other countries besides the USA. They are known as the "Leaders in Lubrication" and have the very best quality lubes in the world. Enough about the LE oil. I want to set the record straight about the Falex wear test so that everyone will see that it is not a dog and pony test, but a well known and used test by many top labs and oil companies for bench testing oils.
Why Lubrication Engineers chooses to use the type of testing rigs that they use.
The SRV ASTM D-5707 is a test used for evaluating extreme pressure (EP) properties of all kinds of oils and greases. The SRV is also used for Wear testing. In the body of this report you will see that the SRV test is the best type of test for gear oil testing.
Lubrication Engineers uses many different tests depending on the type of oil to be tested and where they will be used. LE uses the SRV and 4-ball tests when evaluating their gear oils for wear and EP capabilities. Below are the reasons why LE had decided on using those specific tests. As you can see LE is not the only company that uses the SRV test.
1. In Castrol's general reference guide, page 3---9 They say "The SRV tester was developed to determine the coefficient of friction, antiwear and EP properties of lubricants under boundary and mixed film condition. Oils that they test on the SRV are;
2 Gear oils
2 Greases
2. Plint Tribology testing equipment manual for tribologists page 13 says;
Typical applications for the TE 77 high frequency Friction Machine (SRV) are;
1. Screening Tests for Crankcase and Gearbox Lubricants.
2. Fundamental Lubricant Chemistry Studies
3. Lubricant Formulation Studies
4. Lubricity Testing for Fuels and Lubricants
5. Wear and Liquid Corrosion Studies.
6. Stick-Slip Testing of Industrial Lubricants
7. Boundary Friction Evaluation
8. Grease Evaluation for EP, Anti-Wear and Scuffing properties.
9. Friction, Wear and Failure Testing of Soft and Hard Coatings and Films.
10. Dry and Lubricated Friction and Wear Testing
11. Wear Testing of Engine components;
Cam/Follower, Ring/Liner, Piston Skirt, Valve Train, Fuel Pump.
12. |Fretting Wear Testing.
These are just a few types of tests that are done on the SRV type test machine in addition to the Grease for EP testing that was posted above.
In an article called "Machines and Methodologies for Testing Extreme Pressure and Anti-Wear Properties of Lubricants" Test machines are evaluated to find the best type of tester.
Group 1 Stationary Point of Contact
These are rigs in which the point of contact is stationary on one of the surfaces. They all have simple specimen geometries. Examples include;
Falex
4-Ball
Timken
Reichert
Group 2 Moving Point of Contact;
These are rigs where the point of contact moves over both surfaces. This includes rigs using actual gears and cams as well as twin-disk machines.
FZG
IAE
Ryder
MIRA Cam and Follower
Group 3 Stationary Point of Contact/Minimal Energy Pulse/Independently Thermally Controlled;
These are test machines in which sliding velocities are maintained at low levels in order to minimize frictional heating and in order to promote boundary lubrication regimes. They are the short stroke reciprocation rigs and the two types most commonly available are as follows;
Optimol SRV
Plint TE 77
By comparison with Group 2 machines, the Group 3 machines (except in the case of the piston Ring on Cylinder Liner contact near stroke end) do not set out to emulate the mechanics of the real contact to be investigated, but aim to simulate the intimate contact conditions in a controllable and accessible way. In this respect, these machines fulfill the requirements of an effective bench test that is they are simulators of real contacts.
In his conclusion he said, "Group 1 machines (4-ball, Falex, Timken, Reichert) do not provide an adequate emulation or simulation of real contacts subject to boundary or mixed lubrication regimes. It is not necessary to emulate the mechanics of the contact in order to provide an adequate bench test simulation for assessment of lubricant/additive performance. A third generic group of bench test machines is identified. These machines are primarily simulators and not emulators. These machines provide better experimental control and more flexibility than the latter two Groups. This allows greater insight into the processes taking place within the contact zone."
He further states that " The capabilities of the test machine groups can be summarized as follows;"
Machines
Real Contacts Emulated-Real Contacts Simulated
Group 1 Nil--Nil
Group 2 Gear Cam/Follower--Nil
Group 3 Ring/Liner--Gear Cam/Follower
References;
1. Plint M A Alliston-Greiner A F: Extreme pressure and anti-wear properties of lubricants: A critical study of current test methods and suggestions for the future.
2. Bell J C: Critical physical conditions in the lubrication of automotive valve train systems: Tribology international Vol 24 No 2 1991
3. Mills T N and Cameron A: Basic studies on boundary, EP and piston-ring lubrication using a special apparatus: ASLE Transactions Vol 25 117-124.
4. Cooper D and Moore A J: The influence of boundary films on lubricant anti scuffing performance.
5. Alliston-Greiner A F: Testing extreme pressure and anti-wear performance of gear lubricants: ImechE Vol 205 June 1991
6. Cooper D and Moore A J: Wear control in automotive diesel engines: Austrib 94 Perth.
Definitions;
Emulate --- To strive to equal
Simulated --- An apparatus that generates test conditions
approximation actual or operational conditions.
This shows that LE uses the latest, most reliable and accurate tests available anywhere today.
I hope that this helps for understanding the tests that are used for evaluating oil and I hope to be able to assist in oil issues in the future if called opon.
Kevin Dinwiddie
Tribologist
Member STLE
LE uses the Falex test on their engine oils when it is in the group 1 test group which seems to not be the best type of test. If this is correct then I can help you understand why it seems to be that way. In this paragraph they talk about "boundary or mixed lubrication regimes" They did not talk about Hydrodynamic lubrication (a system of lubrication in which the shape and relative motion of the sliding surfaces causes the formation of a fluid film having sufficient pressure to separate the surfaces). Boundry and mixed lubrication regimes are more prevelant in gear oil or rolling bearing applications, and as such one would be better off using the SRV bench test. For engine oils the Falex test (Hydrodynamic lubrication) is not only a good test but very accurate at one loading tooth equal to .0000556 of wear at the test pin and vee blocks. The test can also be done at different levels of pressure. The LE tests were done at 350lb for a five minute break-in-peroid and then increased to 600lb and maintained for the 15 min test. Some of the oils that failed siezed so I guess that might be more than hydrodynamic, heck that's more than boundry.
This was what was posted in an above post. In his conclusion he said, "Group 1 machines (4-ball, Falex, Timken, Reichert) do not provide an adequate emulation or simulation of real contacts subject to boundary or mixed lubrication regimes. It is not necessary to emulate the mechanics of the contact in order to provide an adequate bench test simulation for assessment of lubricant/additive performance. A third generic group of bench test machines is identified. These machines are primarily simulators and not emulators. These machines provide better experimental control and more flexibility than the latter two Groups. This allows greater insight into the processes taking place within the contact zone."
Boundry Lubrication is a condition of lubrication in which the friction between two surfaces in relative motion is determined by the properties of the surfaces and by the properties of the lubricant other than viscosity or (extreme pressure additive like in gear oils).
Your comment,
If the Falex is not a good indication in how well an oil holds up under boundary or mixed-film lubrication, then what does that tell us about LE oils?
Answer,
There are a lot of oils that did not even pass the Falex test-they failed. They failed under what might seem like only Hydrodynamic film testing. What does that tell you about the other oils that failed or had more wear than the LE oils? I guess that tells us that LE oils are much better than the other oils.
There are 37,000 chemical makeups for just a parafin base oil, then there is napthenic, and many synthetics. LE uses the best types of base oils. These base oils are selected to match the additive chem so that they work better together, they spare no $ in the quality of the additives but select them just for quality. If another company used the same types of base oils, had them processed the same way and as many times as LE does, used the same additive package as LE does, they would still fall short of the LE products. LE uses Monolec in their engine oils, hyd oils, rock drill oils, etc. Monolec is an anit-wear, friction reducing, self regenerating anti-oxidant. Since LE does not sell Monolec to any other company and it is only used in LE products then LE would have less wear and better oxidation resistance than other oils would. This Monolec is above and beyond a very robust additive package that far exceeds what normal oils use.
First I hope I understand you question. You are wondering why
OK guys, first of all I work for Lubrication Engineers (24 years)and I will not try and sell anyone anything on this sight. A friend told me about this thread and said that I might want to set things straight. First, some of the API classifications are not up to date. For instance the 8530 is ILSAC GF-3, API SL. So you can see that the info that has been posted here is not quite up to date. Don't be fooled by ones that have not heard of the (LE)Lubrication Engineers products. They have been in the commercial industry since 1951 and market their lubes in 60 other countries besides the USA. They are known as the "Leaders in Lubrication" and have the very best quality lubes in the world. Enough about the LE oil. I want to set the record straight about the Falex wear test so that everyone will see that it is not a dog and pony test, but a well known and used test by many top labs and oil companies for bench testing oils.
Why Lubrication Engineers chooses to use the type of testing rigs that they use.
The SRV ASTM D-5707 is a test used for evaluating extreme pressure (EP) properties of all kinds of oils and greases. The SRV is also used for Wear testing. In the body of this report you will see that the SRV test is the best type of test for gear oil testing.
Lubrication Engineers uses many different tests depending on the type of oil to be tested and where they will be used. LE uses the SRV and 4-ball tests when evaluating their gear oils for wear and EP capabilities. Below are the reasons why LE had decided on using those specific tests. As you can see LE is not the only company that uses the SRV test.
1. In Castrol's general reference guide, page 3---9 They say "The SRV tester was developed to determine the coefficient of friction, antiwear and EP properties of lubricants under boundary and mixed film condition. Oils that they test on the SRV are;
2 Gear oils
2 Greases
2. Plint Tribology testing equipment manual for tribologists page 13 says;
Typical applications for the TE 77 high frequency Friction Machine (SRV) are;
1. Screening Tests for Crankcase and Gearbox Lubricants.
2. Fundamental Lubricant Chemistry Studies
3. Lubricant Formulation Studies
4. Lubricity Testing for Fuels and Lubricants
5. Wear and Liquid Corrosion Studies.
6. Stick-Slip Testing of Industrial Lubricants
7. Boundary Friction Evaluation
8. Grease Evaluation for EP, Anti-Wear and Scuffing properties.
9. Friction, Wear and Failure Testing of Soft and Hard Coatings and Films.
10. Dry and Lubricated Friction and Wear Testing
11. Wear Testing of Engine components;
Cam/Follower, Ring/Liner, Piston Skirt, Valve Train, Fuel Pump.
12. |Fretting Wear Testing.
These are just a few types of tests that are done on the SRV type test machine in addition to the Grease for EP testing that was posted above.
In an article called "Machines and Methodologies for Testing Extreme Pressure and Anti-Wear Properties of Lubricants" Test machines are evaluated to find the best type of tester.
Group 1 Stationary Point of Contact
These are rigs in which the point of contact is stationary on one of the surfaces. They all have simple specimen geometries. Examples include;
Falex
4-Ball
Timken
Reichert
Group 2 Moving Point of Contact;
These are rigs where the point of contact moves over both surfaces. This includes rigs using actual gears and cams as well as twin-disk machines.
FZG
IAE
Ryder
MIRA Cam and Follower
Group 3 Stationary Point of Contact/Minimal Energy Pulse/Independently Thermally Controlled;
These are test machines in which sliding velocities are maintained at low levels in order to minimize frictional heating and in order to promote boundary lubrication regimes. They are the short stroke reciprocation rigs and the two types most commonly available are as follows;
Optimol SRV
Plint TE 77
By comparison with Group 2 machines, the Group 3 machines (except in the case of the piston Ring on Cylinder Liner contact near stroke end) do not set out to emulate the mechanics of the real contact to be investigated, but aim to simulate the intimate contact conditions in a controllable and accessible way. In this respect, these machines fulfill the requirements of an effective bench test that is they are simulators of real contacts.
In his conclusion he said, "Group 1 machines (4-ball, Falex, Timken, Reichert) do not provide an adequate emulation or simulation of real contacts subject to boundary or mixed lubrication regimes. It is not necessary to emulate the mechanics of the contact in order to provide an adequate bench test simulation for assessment of lubricant/additive performance. A third generic group of bench test machines is identified. These machines are primarily simulators and not emulators. These machines provide better experimental control and more flexibility than the latter two Groups. This allows greater insight into the processes taking place within the contact zone."
He further states that " The capabilities of the test machine groups can be summarized as follows;"
Machines
Real Contacts Emulated-Real Contacts Simulated
Group 1 Nil--Nil
Group 2 Gear Cam/Follower--Nil
Group 3 Ring/Liner--Gear Cam/Follower
References;
1. Plint M A Alliston-Greiner A F: Extreme pressure and anti-wear properties of lubricants: A critical study of current test methods and suggestions for the future.
2. Bell J C: Critical physical conditions in the lubrication of automotive valve train systems: Tribology international Vol 24 No 2 1991
3. Mills T N and Cameron A: Basic studies on boundary, EP and piston-ring lubrication using a special apparatus: ASLE Transactions Vol 25 117-124.
4. Cooper D and Moore A J: The influence of boundary films on lubricant anti scuffing performance.
5. Alliston-Greiner A F: Testing extreme pressure and anti-wear performance of gear lubricants: ImechE Vol 205 June 1991
6. Cooper D and Moore A J: Wear control in automotive diesel engines: Austrib 94 Perth.
Definitions;
Emulate --- To strive to equal
Simulated --- An apparatus that generates test conditions
approximation actual or operational conditions.
This shows that LE uses the latest, most reliable and accurate tests available anywhere today.
I hope that this helps for understanding the tests that are used for evaluating oil and I hope to be able to assist in oil issues in the future if called opon.
Kevin Dinwiddie
Tribologist
Member STLE
LE uses the Falex test on their engine oils when it is in the group 1 test group which seems to not be the best type of test. If this is correct then I can help you understand why it seems to be that way. In this paragraph they talk about "boundary or mixed lubrication regimes" They did not talk about Hydrodynamic lubrication (a system of lubrication in which the shape and relative motion of the sliding surfaces causes the formation of a fluid film having sufficient pressure to separate the surfaces). Boundry and mixed lubrication regimes are more prevelant in gear oil or rolling bearing applications, and as such one would be better off using the SRV bench test. For engine oils the Falex test (Hydrodynamic lubrication) is not only a good test but very accurate at one loading tooth equal to .0000556 of wear at the test pin and vee blocks. The test can also be done at different levels of pressure. The LE tests were done at 350lb for a five minute break-in-peroid and then increased to 600lb and maintained for the 15 min test. Some of the oils that failed siezed so I guess that might be more than hydrodynamic, heck that's more than boundry.
This was what was posted in an above post. In his conclusion he said, "Group 1 machines (4-ball, Falex, Timken, Reichert) do not provide an adequate emulation or simulation of real contacts subject to boundary or mixed lubrication regimes. It is not necessary to emulate the mechanics of the contact in order to provide an adequate bench test simulation for assessment of lubricant/additive performance. A third generic group of bench test machines is identified. These machines are primarily simulators and not emulators. These machines provide better experimental control and more flexibility than the latter two Groups. This allows greater insight into the processes taking place within the contact zone."
Boundry Lubrication is a condition of lubrication in which the friction between two surfaces in relative motion is determined by the properties of the surfaces and by the properties of the lubricant other than viscosity or (extreme pressure additive like in gear oils).
Your comment,
If the Falex is not a good indication in how well an oil holds up under boundary or mixed-film lubrication, then what does that tell us about LE oils?
Answer,
There are a lot of oils that did not even pass the Falex test-they failed. They failed under what might seem like only Hydrodynamic film testing. What does that tell you about the other oils that failed or had more wear than the LE oils? I guess that tells us that LE oils are much better than the other oils.
There are 37,000 chemical makeups for just a parafin base oil, then there is napthenic, and many synthetics. LE uses the best types of base oils. These base oils are selected to match the additive chem so that they work better together, they spare no $ in the quality of the additives but select them just for quality. If another company used the same types of base oils, had them processed the same way and as many times as LE does, used the same additive package as LE does, they would still fall short of the LE products. LE uses Monolec in their engine oils, hyd oils, rock drill oils, etc. Monolec is an anit-wear, friction reducing, self regenerating anti-oxidant. Since LE does not sell Monolec to any other company and it is only used in LE products then LE would have less wear and better oxidation resistance than other oils would. This Monolec is above and beyond a very robust additive package that far exceeds what normal oils use.
03-02-2004, 02:19 PM
#3
Registered User
Thread Starter
It is Lubrication Engineers' synblend 10w30 with their Monolec additive. The wear rates are amazingly low, and oxidation resistance high, so it should be great for high rpm use for at least 5000 miles.
www.le-inc.com
http://www.le-inc.com/Literature/Product%2...530%20Flyer.pdf
Kere is a note from Kevin, a lubrologist at LE:
"It would be easy for someone to see by oil analysis that the LE 8130 does have Boron at 146 ppm, Zinc at 1522, and Phos at 1160. They use 70% Group IV and 30% Group 2+. You would also see that the 8800 has very similar #'s for all of the above additives. However they use a Group I base oil for reasons that benefit the slightly different additive package and seem to work better than by using a higher Base oil group. I am restricted in talking about why this happens or what LE does to make it happen (sorry). No Moly is used in any of LE's products. "
"LM 8130 has not been re-submitted to API since it was introduced as a CH-4, SH oil. It has 1,300 ppm phos and would not pass the min phos level for gas only engines of (1,000 ppm phos). There are some types of phos that will not hurt a cat conv, LE is a safe one, however API still will not approve an oil as SL if it has more than 1,000 ppm of phos. So the 8130 was not re-submitted to API. This does not mean that the 8130 is a poor oil as some here have said. I have a gas engine 2001 Dodge 4.7, V8 double overhead cam engine and the oil that I use is LE 8130. As you might know, I have the results to many types and viscosities of oils that are on the market, I have picked the 8130 for my use. This 8130 is a blend (syn petro)
The 8800 15w-40 is a petro oil CH-4, SJ. It also has more than 1,000 ppm of phos, however the 15w-40 grade is not subject to any maximums of phos.
The 8530 5w-30 is a blend (syn petro) GF-3, SL gas only oil.
The 8130 was tested on TFOUT and Falex as 6-Falex and 480 TFOUT.
The new data on 8800 is 3 Falex and 311 TFOUT.
The new data on 8530 is 5-Falex and 518 TFOUT.
For comparison on the 8530
Penn syn blend 142-fail
Penn pure base 139-12
Valv durablend 202-10
Exxon superflow 178-fail
Quaker 167-22
Castrol GTX 114-26
Castrol Syntec 189-11
Mobil 1 tri syn 350-12
As you can see the LE 8530 oil has 1/2 the specific wear rate combined with 168 minutes higher oxidation resistance than any of the other oils tested, even syntec and mobil-1 tri syn.
Hope this helps
KD "
www.le-inc.com
http://www.le-inc.com/Literature/Product%2...530%20Flyer.pdf
Kere is a note from Kevin, a lubrologist at LE:
"It would be easy for someone to see by oil analysis that the LE 8130 does have Boron at 146 ppm, Zinc at 1522, and Phos at 1160. They use 70% Group IV and 30% Group 2+. You would also see that the 8800 has very similar #'s for all of the above additives. However they use a Group I base oil for reasons that benefit the slightly different additive package and seem to work better than by using a higher Base oil group. I am restricted in talking about why this happens or what LE does to make it happen (sorry). No Moly is used in any of LE's products. "
"LM 8130 has not been re-submitted to API since it was introduced as a CH-4, SH oil. It has 1,300 ppm phos and would not pass the min phos level for gas only engines of (1,000 ppm phos). There are some types of phos that will not hurt a cat conv, LE is a safe one, however API still will not approve an oil as SL if it has more than 1,000 ppm of phos. So the 8130 was not re-submitted to API. This does not mean that the 8130 is a poor oil as some here have said. I have a gas engine 2001 Dodge 4.7, V8 double overhead cam engine and the oil that I use is LE 8130. As you might know, I have the results to many types and viscosities of oils that are on the market, I have picked the 8130 for my use. This 8130 is a blend (syn petro)
The 8800 15w-40 is a petro oil CH-4, SJ. It also has more than 1,000 ppm of phos, however the 15w-40 grade is not subject to any maximums of phos.
The 8530 5w-30 is a blend (syn petro) GF-3, SL gas only oil.
The 8130 was tested on TFOUT and Falex as 6-Falex and 480 TFOUT.
The new data on 8800 is 3 Falex and 311 TFOUT.
The new data on 8530 is 5-Falex and 518 TFOUT.
For comparison on the 8530
Penn syn blend 142-fail
Penn pure base 139-12
Valv durablend 202-10
Exxon superflow 178-fail
Quaker 167-22
Castrol GTX 114-26
Castrol Syntec 189-11
Mobil 1 tri syn 350-12
As you can see the LE 8530 oil has 1/2 the specific wear rate combined with 168 minutes higher oxidation resistance than any of the other oils tested, even syntec and mobil-1 tri syn.
Hope this helps
KD "
06-01-2004, 11:06 AM
#4
Registered User
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Visalia
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RR: I'm just reading as many of the threads regarding LE Lubricants as possible, as I have been an LE Sales rep for 29 years and want to be sure you-all are getting correct information about our products. Call LEHQ direct if you like and ask if what I am saying is true and if Iam qualified. You mention a tribologist at LE named Kevin, and he signs (signed) his thread KD. I know Kevin, he is a highly qualifed Sales Rep, a CLS (Certified Lube Specialist), but not a tribologist. He currently works for a competitor to LE. The numbers he gave for Falex and TFOUT testing were correct. Regarding phosphorus levels in engine oil chemistries: phosphorus and zinc make up a high percentage of the "conventional antiwear package of most engine oil. It is usually suspended in a volitale "carrier" to get it into solution and some of it migrate to the exhaust stream right after an oil change because the "carrier" has not had a chance to "evaporate", hence some phosphorus makes it way to your CAT. If you use a Sl API oil< 1000ppm Phosphorus and cange the oil every 3000 to 4000 miles you are putting more Phosphorus into your CAT than if you used an oil like LE's 8130 with phosphorus zinc levels abovel 1500 ppm and ran the oil 10,000 to 15,000 like it was designed to do. Studies have shown very little phos migrates to the exhaust after the initial slug right after the oil change. Regards to all. G. Mark Nickel, Visalia, CA
Trending Topics
06-01-2004, 04:58 PM
#8
Administrator
Edited RR's posts to fix links.
RR: If running a diff fluid and tranny fluid that meets Honda's certifications is so important to you (from what you have posted in other threads), why would you consider a motor oil that doesn't have the Honda reccomended certifications?
RR: If running a diff fluid and tranny fluid that meets Honda's certifications is so important to you (from what you have posted in other threads), why would you consider a motor oil that doesn't have the Honda reccomended certifications?
06-01-2004, 05:55 PM
#9
Registered User
Thread Starter
Because many of us are not convinced that SL's are superior to SH, and I recommend and do for my car what i think is best. Plus, there is no oil analysis that conclusively could demonstrate that that 8130 is unacceptable, since the anti-wear materials get used up, and they would have no baseline. A number of highly rsepected oils have decided either not to follow API's recommendations (which benefit the mfr, not the owner), in addition to the not wanting to pay the cost of re-certifying.
If you want to use an SL-rated oil, do so.
If you want to use an SL-rated oil, do so.
06-01-2004, 06:45 PM
#10
Administrator
I don't claim to know about SL vs SH, and I believe you do what you think is best. Certainly we all want to do what is best and why your information is valuable.
I just confused as you have said when talking about gear oils that Honda recommendations should be followed to the letter and in the case of motor oil these recommendations are acceptable to ignore. It could be reasonable to assume some company's might make a gear oil that doesn't meet a particular GL spec that Honda recommends but is still perfectly acceptable in use. We could probably agree that in some cases as you just stated it can be as simple as a company not wanting to pay to get a fluid certified.
Thanks for your ear, err eyes
,
-Ry
I just confused as you have said when talking about gear oils that Honda recommendations should be followed to the letter and in the case of motor oil these recommendations are acceptable to ignore. It could be reasonable to assume some company's might make a gear oil that doesn't meet a particular GL spec that Honda recommends but is still perfectly acceptable in use. We could probably agree that in some cases as you just stated it can be as simple as a company not wanting to pay to get a fluid certified.
Thanks for your ear, err eyes
,-Ry