Synthetic Oil

L

Luigi

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Messages
524
Display Name
Display name:
Luigi
With the advent of leadless avgas coming in 2018, do you think we will see a resurgence in synthetic oil like the maligned Mobil Av-1? I realize that synthetics don't suspend the lead well, but with the new fuels this may be a good option again.
 
Luigi said:
With the advent of leadless avgas coming in 2018, do you think we will see a resurgence in synthetic oil like the maligned Mobil Av-1? I realize that synthetics don't suspend the lead well, but with the new fuels this may be a good option again.
Click to expand...
Your engine still has .002" of oil clearances, the thinner oils will cause a huge drop in oil pressure.
 
But if the oil viscosity is graded at 20W 50, how would the synthetic be thinner than Phillips 20W 50? I'm not talking the newer 0 W 20 for newer cars.
 
Luigi said:
But if the oil viscosity is graded at 20W 50, how would the synthetic be thinner than Phillips 20W 50? I'm not talking the newer 0 W 20 for newer cars.
Click to expand...
It can be done, we have been running our motorcycles on Castrol 50 for years. even with lead.
 
I would think once we start using unleaded fuels synthetic oil of the right viscosity will work just fine. When I first switched to synthetic oil in my motorcycle I saw a 20 degree decrease in temperatures.
 
If 100LL disappeared entirely then I think it might work. That said, I'm not certain that we'll actually get an unleaded fuel at the pumps in 2018.
 
I wonder why air boat engines from aircraft run so nice on 100LL and delo 400 15-w-40 ?
 
If 100LL goes away oil will be the least of your problems.
 
They could develop a lead free gasoline and those that absolutely needed lead could add it as an additive. Its all complicated and balled up as heck though. There would be a LOT of complaining. It would be a good idea from a clean air perspective though. We all want clean air, right? I know I do. Long term, it wouldnt be that much more. I don't think car gasoline really is much more because the got rid of lead. And there were a lot of naysayers that said it couldnt be done. But...good luck doing it. Lots of POLITICS!
 
Shell and Swift fuels have supposedly developed a seamless drop-in replacement for 100 ll that is undergoing performance testing right now. Will it meet specs? who knows, but they sure have invested a lot of time and money!
 
coloradobluesky said:
They could develop a lead free gasoline and those that absolutely needed lead could add it as an additive. Its all complicated and balled up as heck though. There would be a LOT of complaining. It would be a good idea from a clean air perspective though. We all want clean air, right? I know I do. Long term, it wouldnt be that much more. I don't think car gasoline really is much more because the got rid of lead. And there were a lot of naysayers that said it couldnt be done. But...good luck doing it. Lots of POLITICS!
Click to expand...

I like your idea in theory. In practice, though, it would end up requiring two pumps - one that would be, say 93UL AvGas, and one 100LL AvGas. The two pumps kills it, because there's not enough volume to justify a second pump for most airports/FBOs. That's why you don't see MoGas very regularly at airports, and just a single 100LL pump. That's why 80/87 went away.

The issue for aircraft engines isn't lead (they don't need it), it's anti-knock properties. That is physics. A fuel without lead can be done, the trick is doing it in a way that is truly a drop-in replacement (unlike cars, people don't buy new planes every 3 years) and doesn't cost $20/gallon.

The people in the know in the industry I see aren't complaining about the lead going away, they're just making the point that the replacement still needs to support the full legacy fleet. This hasn't changed in the time that I've been following or otherwise involved with it, which has been almost 10 years now.
 
Only a few engines actually NEED the 100 octane, and they could use an additive.
 
coloradobluesky said:
Only a few engines actually NEED the 100 octane, and they could use an additive.
Click to expand...
I am sure you will be able to buy a little bottle of tetraethy lead to add to your fuel. Some of the snake oil additive available now are questionable as to octaine boost they claim.
 
brien23 said:
I am sure you will be able to buy a little bottle of tetraethy lead to add to your fuel...
Click to expand...

What exactly is the base gasoline you intend to add it too? Mogas?
 
Ted DuPuis said:
...The issue for aircraft engines isn't lead (they don't need it), it's anti-knock properties. That is physics. A fuel without lead can be done, the trick is doing it in a way that is truly a drop-in replacement (unlike cars, people don't buy new planes every 3 years) and doesn't cost $20/gallon.

The people in the know in the industry I see aren't complaining about the lead going away, they're just making the point that the replacement still needs to support the full legacy fleet. This hasn't changed in the time that I've been following or otherwise involved with it, which has been almost 10 years now.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
Like many engineering challenges it isn't easy to solve this one. If it was it would already have been done. :cool:
 
brien23 said:
I am sure you will be able to buy a little bottle of tetraethy lead to add to your fuel. Some of the snake oil additive available now are questionable as to octaine boost they claim.
Click to expand...

The average citizen coouldn't buy TEL in the 70's. It sure as hell isn't going to be available to Joe Pilot
 
brien23 said:
I am sure you will be able to buy a little bottle of tetraethy lead to add to your fuel. Some of the snake oil additive available now are questionable as to octaine boost they claim.
Click to expand...
After all the bad press lead has had in the past, I doubt it.
 
brien23 said:
If 100LL goes away oil will be the least of your problems.
Click to expand...
I don't know why you say that. Continental says they will be able to develop rated horsepower on their engines with any of the alternatives currently vying for certification.
 
coloradobluesky said:
Only a few engines actually NEED the 100 octane, and they could use an additive.
Click to expand...

I bet that I've spent more time running our engines on dynos than you have, instrumented for detonation no less. And you would probably be surprised how, when tested at limit numbers (which is what is required for certified engines), most of our engines do NEED the anti-knock properties of 100LL, or close to it. Keep in mind that the certification tests push the engines to the limits rather than where most of us operate. However, that is exactly the point of the certification testing - to make sure that when you get to those limits, you don't turn your pistons into butter (which I've seen happen).
 
brien23 said:
I am sure you will be able to buy a little bottle of tetraethy lead to add to your fuel. Some of the snake oil additive available now are questionable as to octaine boost they claim.
Click to expand...
I probably should have said fat chance of getting a little bottle of tetraethyllead to add to your fuel.
 
Last edited:
flyingron said:
I don't know why you say that. Continental says they will be able to develop rated horsepower on their engines with any of the alternatives currently vying for certification.
Click to expand...

Developing rated horsepower isn't necessarily the same as "developing rated horsepower AND reaching TBO without blowing up." :D
 
brien23 said:
I probably should have said fat chance of getting a little bottle of tetraethyllead to add to your fuel.
Click to expand...
All you are going to have to do is, go to Flint and get some water.
 
brien23 said:
I probably should have said fat chance of getting a little bottle of tetraethyllead to add to your fuel.
Click to expand...
Yup, I missed the sarcasm. I knew some guys who tried to get some TEL for a research project and the refinery that we were visiting turned them down cold. This happened in the late 70's.
 
I don't understand the skepticism about being able to develop a good unleaded. It's not trivial, but we have good evidence that it is quite possible.

First, for low compression engines, mogas is a common STC. It works well, even with the low consistency of mogas. The engines make it to TBO without issue and make full power. So, the basic engine design does not need lead. The high compression engines are of the same design, just higher compression.

Second, we already have much higher octane fuels for racing. I can go down to the corner and get 100 AKI (100LL is about 96 AKI) racing fuel at a pump down the street. There is no lead in it. It's expensive, at about $6/gallon, but it's available. It's even lower volume than avgas, so the price is comparably high. The chemistry is definitely possible!

Third, we have candidate chemistries already in the works. Companies like Shell believe there is enough market to chase the chemistry and produce the fuel. Shell being involved is a huge indicator. Swift could be doing a venture bet, but Shell isn't likely to bother with that. These are fuels that exist today that are drop in replacements per all the testing so far. They are also 100% miscible with 100LL, so a single pump works fine.

The only remaining worry is price. It can't be insanely high, since companies like Shell would not join a market where the price would redu e volumes consumed by a large amount. It is possible that they're betting that another $1-2 on the price would tolerated, and that would suck. But they're mostly correct: we'd fly less, but we'd fly. Prices were already there no too many years ago and GA didn't die. Wasn't healthy, but didn't die.

And, honestly? I'd pay $1/gallon more to get the lead out. My busy home airport has a departure path right over two elementary schools. Not having as many of those kids grow up to be criminals is worth it.
 
arnoha said:
The only remaining worry is price. It can't be insanely high, since companies like Shell would not join a market where the price would redu e volumes consumed by a large amount. It is possible that they're betting that another $1-2 on the price would tolerated, and that would suck. But they're mostly correct: we'd fly less, but we'd fly. Prices were already there no too many years ago and GA didn't die. Wasn't healthy, but didn't die.
Click to expand...

It will be interesting to see what happens with the prices on the 100LL replacement. What I'm really curious about is how the differential price between gas at the pump and the new AvGas will be. Throughout my flying career (close to 9 years), I've seen that it's typically been around $2/gallon higher for standard airports (not the cheapest in the country, but not the most expensive). If you're based around a major metropolitan area and/or go to Signature, of course, that differential changes. If the current ~$4/gallon expected price for 100LL just goes up to $6/gallon (which would be about $4/gallon higher than regular unleaded), then that means I would expect it to hit $8/gallon should regular unleaded go back up to $4/gallon in a few years. That would be bad for aviation, specifically piston aviation (since Jet-A is much cheaper). You also can't make the price of AvGas get that much higher than Jet-A, otherwise it becomes expensive enough to operate a Navajo/340/414/421 that more folks will go turboprop and drive down the demand for AvGas even further. As it is, everyone I've talked to who's gone turboprop from a 414/421 over the past few years has said their operating costs have gone down by a noticeable amount. There's a bit of fuzzy math to it, but most of it comes down to how much cheaper Jet A is. If you expand that cost differential between AvGas and Jet A, many of the people who fly their big piston birds a lot are going to sell their planes and go Jet A. Who will they sell them to? People who don't fly as much, and demand goes down.

The guys at Shell have analyzed the business case enough to determine it's worth pursuing, otherwise they wouldn't pursue it. It'll just be very interesting to see what the end result is.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
It will be interesting to see what happens with the prices on the 100LL replacement. What I'm really curious about is how the differential price between gas at the pump and the new AvGas will be. Throughout my flying career (close to 9 years), I've seen that it's typically been around $2/gallon higher for standard airports (not the cheapest in the country, but not the most expensive). If you're based around a major metropolitan area and/or go to Signature, of course, that differential changes. If the current ~$4/gallon expected price for 100LL just goes up to $6/gallon (which would be about $4/gallon higher than regular unleaded), then that means I would expect it to hit $8/gallon should regular unleaded go back up to $4/gallon in a few years. That would be bad for aviation, specifically piston aviation (since Jet-A is much cheaper). You also can't make the price of AvGas get that much higher than Jet-A, otherwise it becomes expensive enough to operate a Navajo/340/414/421 that more folks will go turboprop and drive down the demand for AvGas even further. As it is, everyone I've talked to who's gone turboprop from a 414/421 over the past few years has said their operating costs have gone down by a noticeable amount. There's a bit of fuzzy math to it, but most of it comes down to how much cheaper Jet A is. If you expand that cost differential between AvGas and Jet A, many of the people who fly their big piston birds a lot are going to sell their planes and go Jet A. Who will they sell them to? People who don't fly as much, and demand goes down.

The guys at Shell have analyzed the business case enough to determine it's worth pursuing, otherwise they wouldn't pursue it. It'll just be very interesting to see what the end result is.
Click to expand...

Royal Dutch Shell is an interesting company. I have been involved in joint ventures with them and currently one of their upstream units is a client of mine. Shell does more pure internal R&D than its peers. The sustainable competitive advantage of internal R&D in the petroleum sector has been declining for a long time because it is almost impossible to maintain proprietary knowledge.
For most of the last decade Royal Dutch Shell's financial performance has lagged its peer group through rising and falling petroleum price regimes.

If we take a new avgas formulation to replace 100LL as an example, once the various "stakeholders" including the FAA are satisfied with the formulation it will be published as an ASTM standard, or as a ratification of one of several current ASTM unleaded high octane avgas test standards. Any refiner who can meet that standard will be able to produce that avgas and market it. If within the formulation the inventing company (Shell, or anyone else) has a proprietary additive that it can enforce then it will be able to collect a royalty from other users who will have to buy the rights to use it in the avgas they produce. But only until acceptable substitutes for it are created (and that WILL happen).

The best outcome for us consumers would be a larger number of producers and suppliers of the new avgas than we have now.

coloradobluesky said:
Jet A may be lower than 100LL now, but its not always like that.
Click to expand...

Don't expect that to change.
The global refinery input slate has been steadily shifting to heavier (e.g. comparatively cheaper) crudes for several decades now. These favour the production of middle distillates (which products include kerosene, diesel & jet fuel) over the light fractions (such as gasolines). The unconventional shale oil drilling in the Lower 48 has modestly and temporarily disrupted this trend, but there's no material amount of new refining capacity being built to handle light oil input. The one thing that could lower the cost of avgas is a massive shift to electric cars, which would make the aviation gasoline market proportionately more important and more valuable for the product marketers in the downstream petroleum companies.
 
Last edited:
coloradobluesky said:
Jet A may be lower than 100LL now, but its not always like that.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen Jet A ever be noticeably higher than 100LL in my flying career, and in general the gap in price has been expanding as it is.

The other thing Jet A has going for it is contract fuel programs, which can bring the prices down into the "ludicrously low" range. One person I know paid $1.36/gallon (not a typo) for Jet A on his contract fuel program last round. That's an extreme case, but the point is that the same on field Jet A price is in the $4/gallon range.
 
Is this still about synthetic oil use? ;)

I've been busy reading all the threads at the BobIsTheOilGuy.com forum trying to prep for the original question.

Not really but it sounds good.
 
denverpilot said:
Is this still about synthetic oil use? ;)

I've been busy reading all the threads at the BobIsTheOilGuy.com forum trying to prep for the original question.

Not really but it sounds good.
Click to expand...



SEE POST #8
 
brien23 said:
SEE POST #8
Click to expand...

Yawn. I own a low compression 230 HP six banger that doesn't need it.

You missed the humor pointed at the standard thread creep and the fact that there weren't really many answers to the originally posted question.

As an aside/freebie, I was linking to a website where one could go cross-eyed reviewing both professional and anecdotal information about oil and what it does in all sorts of engines until you couldn't keep your eyes open anymore from boredom.

In other words, way more information that one will find here on the topic.

People on the forums over there take motor oil waaaaay too seriously. But it's interesting to read for about three sessions. Then you just shake your head and walk away.

It was a decent way to check my thinking on what I wanted to run in my older Cummins though, and I was able to clear up a misconception brought on by two distinctly different oils being labeled names that are waaaaay too similar by Valvoline.

Start an airplane oil thread over there and you'd have a massive amount of information to sift through for quite a while.
 
I have a friend who switched to synthetic oil in an older Ford with a diesel and he said he couldn't keep oil in it so he switched back. I've always used Valvaline motor oil in my automobiles. I have an '08 Ford Escape, 4 cylinder, 5 spd. manual. At 30k miles, the accelerator became sticky, which was due to the throttle body butterfly being gummed up. Gumout took care of it. It happened again at 60k and 90k miles. There is a lot of discussion about sticking accelerator on automotive forums. Owners have spent a lot of money at dealers, being charged for throttle body or throttle cable replacement as well as butterfly cleaning. In my case, I determined the cause to be due to the porting of PCV air just upstream of the butterfly. Happy to report that after switching to synthetic oil at 90k miles the accelerator has never stuck again and the vehicle has over 170k miles now. Note: Your mileage may vary.
 
Last edited:
I use Mobil 1, 0 W20 in the wife's Lexus, used Mobil Av 1 in my Turbo Arrow, not so good, now have a factory re-man engine and run Phillips X country 20W50.
 
timwinters said:
Is that kinda like:

All 14 year old girls are teenagers thus all teenagers are 14 year old girls?

:cool:
Click to expand...
How about: Stainless steel is corrosion resistant steel, so corrosion resistant steel is stainless steel? That's how some people end up with crappy "stainless" gas grills.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top