Performance comparisons of synthetic and mineral oil crankcase lubricant base stocks

Abstract

AbstractThe physical and performance characteristics of representative synthetic base stocks are compared with those of mineral oils. Comparisons of the base stocks alone and as fully formulated crankcase lubricants are presented.Bench test results and physical properties of unformulated synthetic and mineral oil base stocks are compared. The volatility characteristics of synthetic base stocks are superior to typical mineral oil base stocks. All the synthetic base stocks displayed greater viscosity indices than did mineral oils. Bench tests designed to measure thermal and oxidative stabilities are used to compare synthetic with mineral oil base stocks. Although synthetics appeared no more resistant to oxidation than did mineral oils, fewer sediments, deposits and fluid viscosity increases were observed with synthetic base stocks. No one type of synthetic base oil showed a distinct advantage in these evaluations.Fully formulated mineral oil‐based lubricants are compared with commonly used synthetic‐based lubricants containing identical additive treatments. The synthetic lubricants showed superior engine cleanliness, and resistance to viscosity increased in these tests, but were directionally less effective in wear prevention than mineral oil‐based lubricants. Proper formulation or addition of an antiwear supplement overcame this deficiency.These comparisons demonstrated that synthetic base stocks are available with a wide range of physical properties. Available synthetic base stocks offer performance advantages at an increased cost over mineral oils, but proper formulation of the synthetic lubricant is necessary to ensure totally acceptable lubricant performance.