Trans-Oil (масла Lotos/Лотос, Teboil, воздушные, топливные, масляные, гидравлические фильтры Baldwin/Балдвин) > вопрос-ответ > Комментарий специалистов Teboil по следам статьи "ЗР" №3 2002г.
Cпециалисты Teboil дали свои соображения по поводу недавней статьи о тестах масел в журнале "За Рулем" №3 2002г. Ниже привожу текст на английском (оригинал) и перевод на русский. Смеяться сильно не нужно, перевод делал финский специалист, но смысл все равно понятен.
Comments on the article of Za Roljon 3/2002
First and foremost I sould say, that I was very puzzled by the article of Za Roljom 3/2002. I have repeatedly read it and studied the testing result table. Yet, I still don"t find myself in position to formulate a rational reply. I presume, that this article and the so called tests are work of amateurs and the motives are more or less doubtful. However, I should say, that due to its inconsistency and pseudoscientific outlook is certainly a successful way to disinform innocent readers.
1. The idea of using synthetic engine oils is to achieve good rheology. From among the oils listed in the table, Teboil Diamond had absolutely the best marks for viscosity change (-50,1%). The last column of the table shows so-called "calculated cold starting temperature". Why calculated, not measured? Calculated method is NOT applicable to non-Newtonian fluids. There are standard methods for measuring flow properties at cold temperatures (CCS acc. ASTM D 5293 and Borderline Pumping Temperature acc. ASTM D 4684). How can Shell Helix Ultra have viscosity change of -26,9% and cold starting temperature of only -29°C while Teboil Diamond has -50,1% and -27°C respectively? How can Shell Helix Ultra be attributed as better oil when Diamond has almost 50% better cold properties than Shell? Thus the conclusions of the auther are incosistent.
2. Paragraph "kylma suihu" discusses so-called "keinotekoisen saastuttajan neutralointi". I should say, that I did not understand what does that mean, neither in Finnish, nor in Russian language. Yet I have been in this trade for about 30 years combining both eastern and western arts. However, be it whatever, why should Shell Helix Ultra be attributed as superb when it has the same score of 0,50? That is incosistence. Moreover, TBN (alkalinity number) of semisynthetic oils was mentioned to drop from 9,0-11,0 to 7,5-8,5. The results table shows no such figures! Again, sharper drop of alkalinity of synthetic oils was projected as indication of "chemical activity" implying bad characteristics. The drop of TBN of all oils shown in the table is very acceptable. In fact astonishingly good when remembering that the oil was run for 15 000 km. The fact that Shell Helix Ultra had 6,8 and Diamond had 3,4 after the test can mean anything of the following possibilities:- Shell"s additive has more life time than others
- Shell"s additive was not working as designated. Additives are supposed to deplete during use
- Test"s parameters were not identical for all runs
3. I understood, that the article"s basic message is to prove the superiority of semisynthetic motor oils and to mainly glorify Shell Helix Ultra in addition to Mobil, Castrol and Lukoil. Yet all these qualities are SYNTHETIC, not semisynthetic. Thus the conclusions of the auther are incosistent.
4. The superiority is - according to the auther - is based on so-called "chemical activity" and the need for more additives. This argument assumes, that there is one synthetic base oil from which all tested oils are made. There are numerous synthetic base oils like Polyolephines (Polyalphaolefins), Alkylayted aromatics (alkylbenzenes), Polybutenes, Esters etc.. Some are more active than others. The least active is Polyalphaolefine which is widely used, almost by all oil companies for 5w-40 and 0w-40 engine oils including LukOil. Moreover, it is true, that synthetic oils need higher dose of additives, yet I don"t see why this should be considered as a demerit. The extra additive dose of synthetic oils have nothing to do with neutralisation number and TBN drop, but with anti-wear properties. Thus the conclusions of the auther are incosistent.
5. The article states in "kylma suihku" paragraph that "Ties monenko kerran erinomaisesti toimii Shell - ennatysarvot monissa kohdissa. Hyvin korkeatasoisia ovat Mobil ja Castrol". Yet reading the data of Mobil and Teboil Diamond doesn"t support this claim. Thus the conclusions of the auther are incosistent.
6. The same paragraph states that "Jos luemme taulukkoa tarkkaavaisesti, huomaamme, etta parhaat tulokset ovat yhtioilla, joilla on oljyjen koko tuotantoketju, alkaen oljynporauksesta. Tahan on seltys: monimutkainen teknologinen prosessi vaatii tarkkailua kaikissa vaiheissa". This claim in not necessarily true. The suitability and compatibility of base oils are governed by the Base Oil Interchange guidlines (BOI according to API 1509). The performance of the additives is governed by the target classification and the relevant tests. More over the late mergers between multinational concerns made the above mentioned claim more or less meaningless.
7. Agian, the article states in "Ala palvo epajumalia" paragraph that "Mutta onko lisaantynyt vaahto hyvaksyttavissa?". I was unable to see any data, mention or reference on foam in the whole article.
|Масляные фильтры | Гидравлические фильтры | Воздушные фильтры | Топливные фильтры | Komatsu|
© 2002-2010 Компания Транс Ойл - масла LOTOS и TEBOIL, фильтры Baldwin. Design: 800x600.ru | карта сайта