| ||Format||Pages||Price|| |
|PDF (1.9M)||20||$25||  ADD TO CART|
|Complete Source PDF (3.8M)||68||$55||  ADD TO CART|
In order to provide a partial answer to the question propounded in the title, it will be necessary to present a review of service experience and a limited amount of laboratory engine test data. The real value of any lubricating oil can be determined only by actual service experience; but laboratory data are usually much more reliable for obtaining comparative information on ring sticking and deposit-forming tendencies as well as engine wear. Many authors have contributed toward a better understanding of the lubrication requirements which resulted in the development of heavy-duty oils defined by U. S. Army Specification 2-104B, and it should be unnecessary to cover this earlier work. Similarily, other authors have covered the effects of fuels, operating conditions, and design which adversely affected engine deposits and wear. In November, 1947, Blanc (1) concluded that heavy-duty oils of the 2-104B type, while better than straight mineral oils, were not satisfactory with respect to wear, ring sticking, and piston deposits when using diesel fuels of high sulfur content. He also commended on the apparent spread in performance level of different 2-104B products. Figure 1 shows comparative results of Caterpillar, single-cylinder engine, 480-hr. L-1 tests on a 2-104B lubricant using diesel fuels of approximately 0.15 per cent and 1 per cent sulfur content. The deleterious effects of sulfur as originally outlined by Blanc are today well recognized (2).
Bassett, W. B.
The Lubrizol Corporation, Cleveland, Ohio