Not certain we’re talking about the same thing, as UPLC/MS technology with sensitivity down to femtograms/microliter levels, didn’t exist 40 years ago.
Not from a standard test. Look at the SUDT2 UOA that was recently posted. Ca is 2300+ ppm and is undoubtely coming from multiple conpounds with differrent functionality. P is 700 ppm and Zn is 500 ppm. Maybe 400 ppm of the P is coming from ZDDP but where is the remaining 300 ppm coming from?
So an ICP-QQQ-MS would be able to take care of the qualitative aspect (id) and later if needed, quantitative measurements of any inorganics in play, like those mentioned above (P, Zn, etc). If any organics (no question there are-I can smell them) needed identified and quantitated, then an LC/QTOF (for qual) and LC/QQQ (for quant) would be used. The many commercially available spectral libraries out there for would easily identify what’s in there. Of course, this is entirely different from the physical testing. But if a competitor truly wanted to get the exact formula Kubota uses, it’s quite easy these days. The physical characteristics would follow from there, as long as they included everything from the chemical testing. It all comes back to, “you get what you pay for”—so by the time the knockoff brand goes to that much trouble to put in there what must be in there, their price is likely now close to Kubota’s at that point-except they don’t have the name recognition, so they’re already behind the 8-ball.
I stand corrected. Could you also ID the base oils and the proportions? That plays a significant role.
Identifying the base oils and getting an area percent report is about the easiest test any analytical Chemist ever has to perform, so no problem.
I am surprised by that but I am ignorant of that technology. I will have to educate myself on how that is done.
chem.agilent.com
Dan - I very much appreciate the generosity you show here in sharing both information not commonly available as well as your own expertise.That is exactly what you get in a VOA or UOA from people like Blackstone. A VOA gives you the starting conditions for any specific oil and the UOA lets you evaluate how well it is holding up in service and what an appropriate OCI for the application is.
But lubricating oil is not specified or tested by formulary. Lubricating oil is specified and tested for conformance by physical performance metrics. The specific chemistry used to get a specific performance can and does vary all over the map. You might get a rough idea of how an oil will perform based on the formulary but until you run it through the performance tests you don't actually know.
The table below is the most exhaustive list of performance requirements I have been able to find for SUDT.
View attachment 88232
For the most part those are industry standard tests applicable to any lubricating oil. The metrics and the motivation underlying them is discussed in Kubotas development report.
Development of High Performance Transmission/Hydraulic Fluid (KUBOTA Super-UDT) Establishing the Specification and New Test Method
An agricultural tractor is a machine that performs many operations, such as land preparation, cultivation, towing and PTO operation, to name a few. In Japan it must operate in a wide variety of agricultural applications, such as paddy farming, upland farming, fruit farming and dairy farming, and inwww.sae.org
You really need to read that SAE copyright protected document to understand what they were looking for from the new formulation. I am a researcher by trade and I always want the best data possible so I purchased a copy. That blurb GreensvilleJay didn't like is their public summary and I posted it here along with a lot of other stuff I don't exactly recall. So since this thread has arisen from the dead I have also attached another laundered version of the original document that I personally authored. I doubt the SAE would even notice let alone come after me if I posted the actual 30 year old paper but better to play nice. Finally here is the Cliff Notes version for the PDF challenged:
Kubota set out to improve UDT in three specific aspects:
- They wanted to improve low temperature flow and pumpability. That is refelected in the viscosity data I have provided. They had their own in house hydraulic pumping test which is simple and easily duplicated. They pumped really cold oil through a filter and measured the length of time it took for the oil to warm and attain a minimum flow rate. This is all about viscosity which was a challenge in 1998 but not today. Even today standard formulations of UTTO cannot pass this test.
- They wanted to improve water tolerance. The oil had to be able to absorb 1% by volume water without the formation of sludge, emulsions, or additive dropout - all things that will poison an HST transmission. The test for that was a simple bench test where a measured volume of water and the oil sample were combined in a beaker, agitated, and allowed to rest. It was then filtered and any residue collected was weighed to determine pass/fail. There were some other very standard and unexceptional tests for rust and corrosion prevention that are in line with what you would get from any quality UTTO but again standard formulations cannot pass the filtration test.
- They wanted to improve wet brake and clutch performance. A slightly modified SAE #2 friction test stand is used to measure the frictional stability of the wet brake and clutch linings across repeated controlled applications. The % loss in friction coefficient is the pass/fail criteria. If it passes that phase the final test is to actually put the oil in a tractor and operate it looking for any noticeable squawk or chatter. Final pass/fail is a subjective judgement by the test operator.
Number 3 is not particularly interesting. You will know right away if the wet brakes/clutches in your tractor squawk. chatter, or fade under use. All UTTOs make very expansive claims about their performance in this regard,
Numbers 1 and 2 however are challenging requirements - SUDT has exceptional viscosity properties and tolerance for water. So much so that with only a few exceptions other UTTOs cannot pass those two tests. Case and Deere have essentially equivalent oils and at similar price points, You won't find anything a NAPA or Orschlins that can match any of those three oils.
Thats all the magic there is in that SUDT pail.
Dan
Thank you for the kind words and your invitation to offer my thoughts before the illustrious firing squad gathered here.
Good point. When I needed it though, I couldn't get it, even if it were $5 a quart! It is good to find an alternate in the case that you need it and can't get it. In the end I found the Mystic equivalent and it was pretty much the same price as the Kubota SUDT. I now have a jug of it just in case I need some.
Which Mystik and why do you think its any closer to SUDT2 than any other common UTTO? The product I see around here is the conventional formulation and very run of the mill. The Brookfield viscosity (ASTM D2983) of the synthetic blend is a getting close to SUDT but I have never seen that product for sale anywhere including online. They both claim UDT and J20C equivalency - not SUDT or J20D.
This thread
www.orangetractortalks.com
I am familiar with that locked thread. Really long and loaded with "numbers".This thread
Hydraulic fluid options
This my thread to help iron out misconceptions on Kubota useable hydraulic fluids. I will use Numbers and values, Not opinions or favorites! If you have a fluid or group that you would like included send me a PM here, and any information that help validate your pick...
The important part is there are no numbers or data in that thread just an opinion.
