People know even less about oil additives than they do about fuel additives. Maybe it's because people forget about their oil since they only think about it when it's time to change it every 3 months or so. Oil doesn't have that "top of mind awareness" that fuel does because drivers see how much gas they use every time they fill up. Some even keep track of the costs every time they fill up, too. But consider that even if you don't think about it often, the health of the engine oil is more important to the life of the vehicle than fuel ever was. And that means oil additives are essential to the long-life and value of the vehicle.
For more information, please visit Boraychem.
What kinds of oil additives are there? Are they any good? Let's look at an overview of the situation.
Engine manufacturers have done lots of testing to try and figure out what is needed from a lubricating oil to protect the engines that they design and make. The American Petroleum Institute issues grades for engine oil that are shorthand for a certification that the particular kind of oil contains what is needed to protect a given kind of engine. These certifications are listed in letter-number format, like CI-4 and CJ-4. Your vehicle's owners manual will list the class designation of oil that is recommended for your vehicle.
It's a little known fact that common engine oils sold on the shelf already contain additives. These additives turn ordinary base oil into the kind of oil needed to provide the best protection for today's modern engines. In other words, they help oil fulfill its basic functions in the engines. What are the oil's most important functions? You would think it's all about reducing friction and wear - and you'd be mostly correct. But that's not the only thing motor oil does, by any means. It protects metal surfaces from particulate wear, keeps acids under control, and even performs the essential function of keeping the engine cool by helping to dissipate heat away from engine surfaces.
To help, detergents, dispersants, anti-acids, friction modifiers and viscosity modifiers are always included in the additive packages that come standard with today's oils. And they all fulfill specific roles in helping the oil provide the best protection possible.
Detergents keep metal surfaces clean by removing sludge contaminants. Dispersants work in conjunction with detergents to give the oil the ability to take particle impurities (like dirt or soot in the engine) and suspend them in the oil film, away from metal surfaces, so they don't cause damage. Anti-acids are a broad class of additives that neutralize the acids produced in the engine environment. Without them, these acids would cause corrosion and damage in the engine. Viscosity modifiers are used to help the engine oil maintain the best viscosity across the broadest range of temperatures and conditions that the oil is likely to face. And friction modifiers (like ZDDP) are added to improve the oil formula's ability to cope with high pressure conditions.
Given these facts, what we really want to know is whether we should pay any extra for any of these "aftermarket" oil additives sold off the shelf. To make a good decision, you have to know what you're buying and what it will actually do vs. what it claims to do or what you're expecting it to do. Let's take a look at the general categories of common oil additives. Note that any product names that we happen to mention are the sole property and copyright of their respective manufacturer(s).
- Lucas makes some very popular treatments that work to improve the lube oil's stability across a range of temperatures and conditions. Generally speaking, these kind of products work fairly well, but the consumer should be cautious about the kinds of claims that are implied by these products. There is a difference between correctly claiming that boosting the antioxidant level in an oil will make it last longer, and making additional claims that doing so will improve gas mileage by, say, 10%. We're not saying Lucas specifically says this, but there are similar products out there that have no qualms about doing just that (what could they be? Well, we know that one of them is a "mystery").
- examples of this can be Dura Lube or Slick 50. These will try to improve or extend the oil's extreme pressure protection capacity, typically by supplementing the "EP" additives already present. Their working mechanism revolves around some version of bonding to or coating of metal surfaces with something that makes them "extra slippery". Dura Lube and similar products use an old technology called chlorinated paraffin. Slick 50 was famous in the 80s and 90s for claiming to use Teflon ("the world's slipperiest substance") to reduce friction in the engine. We're not here to break down all the claims for these types of additives, but one should be aware that most of these companies have gotten into trouble over unsubstantiated claims of large benefits to the engines they're used in.
Because we (Bell Performance) make an oil additive, we'll have consumers asking us how ours compares to products like Lucas or Prolong or STP oil treatment. It's hard to do comprehensive testing to verify all the claims made by every product out in the marketplace, though we did do an very interesting extreme pressure protection study with some aftermarket products a few years ago. So you might be thinking that what we're saying is you can't really know what's best. Our advice to consumers trying to decide is to be cautious about product claims, especially claims relating to how an oil additive may boost mileage. Certainly, a healthy oil supply is a lot better for engine performance and life than old worn-out dirty oil. And you could get some mileage boost, but you're never going to buy or use an oil additive just because you want better mileage. You will get the most benefit and bang for your buck if you buy and use oil additives with the expectation that it's going to augment the benefits you're already getting from your base oil, all while making sure that you do the proper oil change schedule for your vehicle. No oil additive is going to be able to overcome sloppy maintenance practices.
Lubricants initially arrive in industrial plants usually via one of two methods:
There are other ways lubricants are acquired, but in each case, maintenance personnel don’t know why a product does or does not work; they simply accept the outside expert’s opinion. In these situations, maintenance workers may not realize there are several products in the plant with different brand names but similar characteristics. They may be unknowingly contributing to the proliferation of products in the plant.
Without understanding what makes the products work, the maintenance person may be reluctant to consolidate. In this case, there is little encouragement for competition and no reason for any oil company to lower its prices. Naturally, maintenance personnel want their equipment to have the highest quality lubricants but at a reasonable price. How can this be accomplished?
Figure 1. Common tests for oil and grease
Jim Fitch’s “Hazards of Changing Lubricant Brands” article in the November-December issue of Machinery Lubrication put the maintenance person’s concerns in perspective. The article brought to mind a system that was developed and used for many years at a U.S. steel company. In order to address the concerns discussed in Fitch’s article, the company established a system whereby lubricants and hydraulic fluids were purchased by performance specifications.
If a product worked in an application satisfactorily, it was tested to determine which ASTM tests (or others) it would pass that were relevant to the application. A specification was then written around those test results that could be placed out for bid by the purchasing department.
If a lower bid was received, the competitor was asked to submit a sample to an independent lab to verify a few very important requirements. If successful, the lowest bidder was awarded the business for a specific period.
Lubricants are unique in that objective lab tests are available to the user that will predict field performance. Very few maintenance products have this advantage.
This article will outline the pros and cons of using a specification system, how to launch such a system and make it work, and how to handle exceptions. If a company’s lubricant purchases are substantial and could benefit from a 10- to 15-percent reduction in costs, this system may offer an advantage while assuring only the highest quality lubricants are used in the equipment.
Every lubricant and hydraulic fluid has a detailed list of tests that must be passed at the oil company before it is released for shipment. The experts at the oil company know how the fluid must perform in your equipment. Several organizations (ASTM, SAE, etc.) have devised lab tests that will measure various aspects of this performance.
For instance, because viscosity and viscosity index are very important in most lubricants, numerous tests have been devised and agreed upon by industry experts to measure these parameters. Figure 1 provides a list of some of the more common tests for oil and grease.
Once a list of important performance specifications is compiled for a given product such as a gear oil, any successful product must be tested to determine the numbers or evaluation for each test. Compatibility is always a concern when switching products.
The steel company’s solution was to give the competing supplier the responsibility of assuring that its product would mix properly with the incumbent product. Any problems in this area were the responsibility of the new supplier. Removal and disposal of the contaminated tank contents were also part of their job. Of course, this rarely needed to be done.
Figure 2 is a typical performance specification for a gear oil. A complete written specification from which the summary sheet is derived is too extensive to be reproduced here. A comprehensive set of summary sheets for several types of oil and grease may be obtained by contacting the author at .
Figure 2. A typical performance specification for a gear oil
While the above information offers details on how to assemble the essential data, writing the specification is more involved. Plant personnel often see lubricants as their domain. They issue requisitions to the purchasing department and expect all the details to be taken care of, including the issuing of a purchase order to the supplier of the plant’s choice.
Contact us to discuss your requirements of Lubricant Additives. Our experienced sales team can help you identify the options that best suit your needs.
The purchasing department often will talk to competitors about supplying a comparable product. This is a common source of conflict between the plant and the purchasing department. Both groups should have input into these decisions.
The steel company’s solution to this problem was to form a committee composed of both plant and purchasing personnel who worked on the specification together. The procedures for qualifying new suppliers and the bidding process were agreed on by both parties and strictly followed. Each plant in the corporation was represented on the committee, and all parties kept a three-ring binder of all the specifications.
Even after the specifications were written, meetings were held periodically to consider any new information acquired, problems encountered that might be due to a product or changes that a supplier thought was necessary.
The science of lubricant testing is constantly evolving, and staying up to date is imperative. The steel company also learned that most oil suppliers take great pride in their quality control, and problems that initially were attributed to the oil company often were the result of something the plant had done or an equipment malfunction.
In order to wean everyone in the maintenance department away from brand names, it is imperative to establish a coding system. Every performance specification written may have a name, but it also needs a number.
The steel company’s system involved all maintenance products (gears, bearings, couplings, lubricants, etc.) and thus required long numbers, but the last three digits were unique to a specific product. For lubricants and hydraulic fluids, those three digits acquired the title “maintenance code” or MC number.
All drums, in-plant tanks, supplier paperwork and written specifications had to have these code numbers. Although the drums and paperwork from a supplier might have brand names on them, the MC number had to appear as well.
There are four basic reasons for this strict adherence to code numbers:
One of the main reasons for the specification system is to prevent “cozy” relationships between vendors and plant personnel. When this situation occurs, prices tend to rise whether quality rises or not. Conflicts then occur between plant personnel and the purchasing department, as the latter attempts to stabilize prices. Using the specification system allows an “arm’s length” relationship.
Looking primarily at the test results promotes objectivity. Of course, quality consistency, dependable deliveries and knowledgeable service are considered as well. No one likes vendors who provide inconsistent quality, unreliable deliveries or spotty service.
The performance specification should be considered a “living” document. It must be periodically adjusted to reflect new knowledge. Once written, the specification may become outdated by new developments in the field. New tests may be devised that assess a parameter better than previous versions.
The consensus of opinion among industry experts might also change regarding which parameters are important or which test provides the best measurement. Therefore, vendors are encouraged to offer suggestions on ways to improve the specifications. Their input can be valuable.
It does not pay to employ performance specifications on low volume items. Below a certain dollar amount, the use of specifications is a waste of time. Simply find something that works and use it if the cost is not excessive. However, in a multi-plant organization, small quantities in several plants can add up to enough money to make using a specification worthwhile. Every situation is different, and good judgment must be used.
Figure 3. Examples of maintenance codes assigned for various lubricant tests
One of the questions that might be asked when considering the use of specifications is: “Do we need to consolidate our products?” According to the Pareto principle (80/20 rule), 80 percent of the lubricant volume in a plant should be concentrated in 20 percent of the individual products.
Take a survey of the products and the volume used of each. If the results do not conform to the 80/20 rule, your plant might be a candidate for lubricant consolidation. In other words, if relatively equal volumes of many products are in use, duplication might exist.
The most obvious benefit of the specification system is lower prices. This can be easily seen. What goes unseen is the high-quality products you obtain while forcing oil companies to compete. However, by instituting a specification system, plant maintenance people are compelled to learn what works and why. This may be a challenge in some plants.
The willingness to perform testing is critical. You do not need to have an onsite laboratory, but you must find a quality offsite lab. While a few tests can be performed onsite with inexpensive equipment, most require expensive equipment and a qualified technician. A few ways to reduce these costs are discussed below. These two disciplines - learning what works and why, and the willingness to conduct testing - are essential.
When you have a “system” in place for purchasing lubricants, vendors tend to be more careful with your products’ quality. Knowing that you test and won’t hesitate to complain or have a bad load pumped out at their expense will keep everyone honest. Also, those vendors who live by “sharp” practices or high costs don’t even bother to solicit your business. My personal experience has proven this to me repeatedly.
As mentioned previously, it is recommended to randomly test every truckload of bulk oil and drum shipments. The steel company did this because of the large volumes purchased. Tests are generally priced individually, and some are expensive.
To lower costs, the steel company selected a few critical tests for each load and assumed the rest were OK. However, this may have been overkill. You could take a sample, label it and store it in case of future problems. As confidence in a vendor grows, this would be an acceptable practice.
Remember, buying lubricants by performance specifications puts lubrication on a professional base. Vendors would rather deal with people who understand lubricants and what makes them work. When the user’s understanding increases, the vendor may see the need to increase his or her own knowledge.
In the last 20 years, various organizations have devised certification tests to evaluate vendor and user knowledge in the lubrication field. This effort has vastly improved the knowledge of everyone involved.
Now vendors know that if a problem occurs, they will receive a rational hearing rather than a screaming, emotional response. Vendors become more service-oriented and better problem-solvers instead of mere order-takers.
At the same time, customers become better problem solvers when they have records that show the important parameters have not changed. They must probe deeper to see if the problem might have been caused by something they did or did not do.
Finally, by concentrating on performance specifications, total fluid management (TFM) will take on a whole new dimension. If you choose to go this route, no longer will you be at the complete mercy of the TFM manager. The knowledge gained by focusing on the lubricant specifications will enable you to ask all the important questions and insist on critical reports.
If you want to learn more, please visit our website Applications of PI Advanced Materials.