It clearly states "PDS Error." It's SOPUS's/Pennzoil's problem to display typical properties for their respective products correctly.*PPPP 5W30 KV100 looks off (I'm guessing should be 9.6 instead of 8.6 ?
This isn't directly related to me any sort of way but,this gets old quickly on these forums.
All my life working on cars,race cars etc. Not one time have I experienced an oil related engine failure. I've recommended friends and family oil choices over and over again. Just because there's no "API" symbol on the quart bottles means nothing to me and never will worry about it.
Considering how off-topic, pointless, and emotionaly loaded this comment is, I'd be more inclined to ask why it bothers you so much what other people do? The owner of the vehicle is an adult that is perfectly capable of making an informed decission.Again, if your friends engine has a failure, and Mazda refuses to pay for the repairs, are YOU going to pay to fix your friend's car?
Are you putting your money where your mouth is in this case?
I was just thinking this the other day. There are some on here that hold M1 0W40 as the new holy grail of PCMO.The sad part here is if you had suggested a 40wt people would have been praising you. UOA results will not sway them.
Manufacturers know, for the most part, the problems that their engines have. They are not so much concerned about the person who obsessively takes care of their engine using good lubricants as they are about those customers who utterly neglect their engines.Reading all these arguments, the question would be, how a manufacture can prove that a wrong viscosity and unapproved oil was used in an engine? Sending the oil for a comprehensive oil analysis?
I have not heard that any manufacture ever done that.
Besides how a oil lab can prove the oil is not API specification or does not have any other approval. They need to run in an actual engine and perform all the testing according to the approvals specs
I really doubt that any manufacture will do it for a particular failed engine
Regarding different viscosity, during a work life of oil its viscosity can change even under normal operation. It can loose viscosity or thicken due to a hundred of reasons
everything said mostly is related to neglected recommended OCIs. Also "gunk, varnish, and sludge" can be forming even under normal operation in modern DI engines using approved oils and recommended extended by manufactures OCI. (Let's not forget perversely approved 15K OCI from BMW in US)Manufacturers know, for the most part, the problems that their engines have. They are not so much concerned about the person who obsessively takes care of their engine using good lubricants as they are about those customers who utterly neglect their engines.
If there is doubt about maintenance, a basic teardown is performed. If everything looks kosher, the warranty claim is approved. If prematurely worn components are discovered or your engine is covered in polymerized gunk, varnish, and sludge, then your claim is denied. The question and reason for a warranty claim denial are not if you used the wrong oil, as much as it is if you neglected to maintain your engine. It's pretty much that simple.
If that's the case, then the the lab analysis didn't prove anything! Statistically speaking, two is not a valid sample size. He will need to do the same analysis with a third (and even fourth) fill using another mainstream brand oil(s). And I would certainly use the viscosity recommended by Mazda.That (oil dilution) is likely from the vehicle being moved around at the factory, dealer lot, etc. They never warm them up. They turn on, move the vehicle, and turn it back off. Fuel adds up quickly, especially in an engine like that.
Typically though, that's not the case. Yes, the "Castrol Patina" that was famous with bimmers from the E46/E39 era was common, but I wouldn't call that normal. Extended OCI's with Euro lubes have extensive testing protocols associated with them to avoid exactly this. That doesn't prevent all issues of course, but most. Same with Dexos.everything said mostly is related to neglected recommended OCIs. Also "gunk, varnish, and sludge" can be forming even under normal operation in modern DI engines using approved oils and recommended extended by manufactures OCI. (Let's not forget perversely approved 15K OCI from BMW in US)
VW famously used UV dye in one of their approvals (I think it was VW). Made it very easy to discern whether the lubricant used was approved or not.Back to the original question how would a manufacture prove the use of a wrong viscosity or unapproved spec oil and decline warranty due to that? They cannot prove it.
Sure, but it can also go the other way. VW dealerships in North America at one point were subbing in Castrol Syntec 5w-30 for the VW-approved product because it was much cheaper. Massive sludge and varnish was the result because the oil couldn't come close to handling the interval. As @Trav can attest to, Honda's VCM system on their V6, even with short intervals, will produce sludge and varnish. You have to step-up to a high quality oil with a more robust additive package (he used M1 0w-40) to prevent it. Sometimes the "wrong" oil can indeed be better, but it can also be markedly worse.If someone using a wrong oil but changing it after half of recommended OCI and on another side someone recommended oil OCI at dealership. Cleanness of engine can be better in the first case, it does not prove anything
PS. not trying to get into a fight, just trying to understand
You can't use UOA's to compare oils, that's not the purpose of the tool. Spectrographic analysis tells us the condition of the lubricant and whether it is suitable for continued use. It also allows us to infer some basic health information about the equipment it is being used in. This information together allows an equipment owner to get the maximum service life out of the lubricant in question, which is the primary purpose. Secondary to that is the chance of it showing an issue with the equipment, such as coolant or dirt ingress, fuel dilution, and potentially something failing, if the rate of failure is slow enough to get picked-up.If that's the case, then the the lab analysis didn't prove anything! Statistically speaking, two is not a valid sample size. He will need to do the same analysis with a third (and even fourth) fill using another mainstream brand oil(s). And I would certainly use the viscosity recommended by Mazda.
Yes agree, normally it is not the case, but it does happen even when an engine is maintained using recommended oil/recommended OCI depending on many factors like short-tripping, racing, using cheapest fuel with no cleaning additives or high sulfer, etc and also manufactures errors like in case of BMWTypically though, that's not the case. Yes, the "Castrol Patina" that was famous with bimmers from the E46/E39 era was common, but I wouldn't call that normal. Extended OCI's with Euro lubes have extensive testing protocols associated with them to avoid exactly this. That doesn't prevent all issues of course, but most. Same with Dexos.
Do other oil producers with VW approvals using the same chemicals to react to UV? Sounds fishy, as it is not related to performance of the lubricant, rather stamp of identityVW famously used UV dye in one of their approvals (I think it was VW). Made it very easy to discern whether the lubricant used was approved or not.
Two steps up/down in weight, definitely will looks suspicious, but W30, W20 why would they care, as sometime even oil manufactures have oil specs close to the edge.And some of this is common sense. If your engine spec's 0W-40 and they get the oil analyzed and it comes back as a 5W-20, well, that's well outside the range of where the oil might "age" to in service. Same if it came back as a 20W-50.
Sure, but it can also go the other way. VW dealerships in North America at one point were subbing in Castrol Syntec 5w-30 for the VW-approved product because it was much cheaper. Massive sludge and varnish was the result because the oil couldn't come close to handling the interval. As @Trav can attest to, Honda's VCM system on their V6, even with short intervals, will produce sludge and varnish. You have to step-up to a high quality oil with a more robust additive package (he used M1 0w-40) to prevent it. Sometimes the "wrong" oil can indeed be better, but it can also be markedly worse.
Well, good luck with that.But if a warranty claim is declined, then the reasons "why" need to be defended in a court of law.
Me, not the case. Others maybe, never heard, very doubtful there is even a caseWell, good luck with that.
Well, it usually involves a district service rep upholding the denial and the buck stops there. Average consumer doesn’t have the time or funds to fight it.Me, not the case. Others maybe, never heard, very doubtful there is even a case
If an engine appears obviously neglected, yes, that can be grounds for the manufacturer to demand the maintenance records before entertaining the idea of putting it through under warranty. If you have those records but somehow manage to have accrued varnish/sludge, you'll be OK, but if you don't have them, you may be in for a big fight with somebody that has a lot more resources than you do.Yes agree, normally it is not the case, but it does happen even when an engine is maintained using recommended oil/recommended OCI depending on many factors like short-tripping, racing, using cheapest fuel with no cleaning additives or high sulfer, etc and also manufactures errors like in case of BMW
So my point earlier was that declining warranty based engine cleanness is quite odd
No idea, but it's enough to cause the question to be asked. Castrol SLX was the oil that first used the UV dye. It was used by both VW:Do other oil producers with VW approvals using the same chemicals to react to UV? Sounds fishy, as it is not related to performance of the lubricant, rather stamp of identity
Depends on how anal retentive they are being I guess. If it's a common failure, they probably won't care (as @Rod Knock noted) but if it's an unusual failure; an engine that doesn't have a history of problems, they may look deeper, and if you give them reasons to drag it out, that's exactly what you may experience.Two steps up/down in weight, definitely will looks suspicious, but W30, W20 why would they care, as sometime even oil manufactures have oil specs close to the edge.
A manufacturer is well within their rights to require the use of an approval. They can't tell you what brand of oil to use, but they certain can stipulate a specific approval that sets a minimum level of performance. If you experience a mechanical issue related to lubrication, and you don't have a service history of the vehicle being serviced with an approved lubricant at the prescribed interval, yes, they can deny coverage and if you choose to fight it, well, they've got the resources on their side.Again, I really not buying argument made here by some folks that a warranty repair can be declined because of wrong viscosity or no manufacture approval oil.
Well, there needs to be a reason for a warranty claim to be filed. Are you talking like rod peekaboo as the alternative to excessive wear or varnish/sludge? If you go into the shop and have low compression and are burning oil expecting warranty coverage and they find out you've been using City Star 10-30 and have no service records that would indicate proper maintenance with an approved product, well, yes, you've set the stage to be denied coverage.Other reasons - yes, like excessive wear or excessive varnish/sludge etc not typical for the engine and mileage and
So what sort of warranty claim are you envisioning here where lubricant selection/performance is suspect but "why" isn't clearly enough defined by that choice that it requires a court battle?But if a warranty claim is declined, then the reasons "why" need to be defended in a court of law.
Yes, true, expensive and time consuming, but nobody stopping. If especially not hiring any lawyers, might be cheap. I have seen people fighting $100 speeding tickets in federal courts, as some roads in DC area monitored by Federal agenciesWell, it usually involves a district service rep upholding the denial and the buck stops there. Average consumer doesn’t have the time or funds to fight it.
In the VAG world, getting TD1'ed is a real thing. AFAIK, it is impossible to get that reversed and I'm sure people have tried over the last several years.Yes, true, expensive and time consuming, but nobody stopping. If especially not hiring any lawyers, might be cheap. I have seen people fighting $100 speeding tickets in federal courts, as some roads in DC area monitored by Federal agencies