Anyone see this?

[daman]

So just because a company dosen't say that there oil's are a
Group IV and V or PAO etc, must mean it's grp III then??,,come
on LOL what a joke...

 

[aquariuscsm]

Does an oil have to contain either a group I,II,or III as a carrier? I read on a post here somewhere that a 100% PAO wouldn`t work well for some reason and it has to have the I,II,or III as a carrier for the additives or something like that? Or can a ultra high quality PAO use a group V as a carrier,or vise versa? I read somewhere (maybe the Japanese M1 site) that the M1 15W50 silver cap is a group IV/V mix.

 

[buster]

Valvoline doesn't have an oil that meets Honda's HTO-06 spec or GM 4718M.

 

[jarvk22]

HI Buster... how do you have time too make so many posts while on your Honeymoon? BTW Synpower IS superior too Mobil 1 in protecting the camshaft from wear.

 

[daman]

Originally Posted By: jarvk22
HI Buster... how do you have time too make so many posts while on your Honeymoon? BTW Synpower IS superior too Mobil 1 in protecting the camshaft from wear.

Ahhh hold the phone here bud....What M1??? what's the ZDDP PPM in SP???

lot of M1's weight's have OVER 1000 PPM,more then enough
to protect C/W....superior my [censored].

 

[OilGuy]

If Valv had to pick a pass/fail cam wear test to try to claim superiority, makes me wonder why they didn't pick other industry standard engine tests that actually quantify the results beyond pass/fail. It almost implies they they are not superior in the other wear tests...

 

[Valvman]

Quote:
It almost implies they they are not superior in the other wear tests...


What "other" wear tests are you speaking of?

Quote:
If Valv had to pick a pass/fail cam wear test to try to claim superiority, makes me wonder why they didn't pick other industry standard engine tests that actually quantify the results beyond pass/fail.


Since when is the Seq IVA test a pass/fail test? It has a limit of 90 micron maximum wear for the cam lobes for the API SM/ILSAC GF-4 specification and it would be tough to say 4 times better wear if it was only pass/fail.

 

[buster]

I have no reason not to believe the claims Valvoline is making. I doubt they would put themselves out there without any science to back it up. Valvoline is a quality formulator and I've been going back thru the UOA's and they all look very good to be honest. If they were using a 4-ball wear test, I wouldn't have bought into it but they are using the Seq IVA test which makes it more credible.

Most likely Mobil will just upgrade their oils, as all oils go thru cyclical changes periodically. It seems Valvoline is using a higher quality ZDP.

 

[OVERKILL]

I assume this ONLY applies to the 5w30, correct? I would be shocked to see Valvoline making this claim against the 0w40 or the TDT 5w40....

 

[buster]

Competition is a good thing.

I think so OVERK1LL. Just 5w30

 

[Drew99GT]

I find it quite telling that Mobil no longer provides MSDSs on their website. You have to contact the sales office. Valvoline has there's right there on the website. Someone did decipher the MSDS of the 10w-30 Mobil 1 EP I believe it was, and it clearly stated a decent chunk of group III oil.

 

[Drew99GT]

Originally Posted By: Valvman
Quote:
It almost implies they they are not superior in the other wear tests...


What "other" wear tests are you speaking of?

Quote:
If Valv had to pick a pass/fail cam wear test to try to claim superiority, makes me wonder why they didn't pick other industry standard engine tests that actually quantify the results beyond pass/fail.


Since when is the Seq IVA test a pass/fail test? It has a limit of 90 micron maximum wear for the cam lobes for the API SM/ILSAC GF-4 specification and it would be tough to say 4 times better wear if it was only pass/fail.


Seriously. It's pass fail in that wear below a certain amount means a pass, and wear above that amount is a fail. But they do measure ACTUAL wear on the cam lobes by weight.

Here's a thought: maybe Mobil 1 really isn't all it's made up to be, and maybe Valvoline Synpower really does provide better wear protection. Does Synpower have a lingering history of showing much higher iron wear in UOA? NO!

 

[buster]

I think M1 is average at wear control, and great at high temp & deposit testing, hence Honda's choice to use it in the RDX.

I believe Synpower does provide better protection than M1. Whether it's significant or not I have no idea. You'd have to know the wear measurements taken.

Mobil's conventional oils show lower Fe than M1.

It's tough to balance the detergency/AW properties of an oil. It's been discussed a lot before.

An interesting test would be to see a TEOST test of Valvoline vs M1. M1 scored a 5.3, EP 3.9, Syntec 26.4.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: buster
I think M1 is average at wear control, and great at high temp & deposit testing, hence Honda's choice to use it in the RDX.

I believe Synpower does provide better protection than M1. Whether it's significant or not I have no idea. You'd have to know the wear measurements taken.

Mobil's conventional oils show lower Fe than M1.

It's tough to balance the detergency/AW properties of an oil. It's been discussed a lot before.

An interesting test would be to see a TEOST test of Valvoline vs M1. M1 scored a 5.3, EP 3.9, Syntec 26.4.


I think you may want to use the word "most", since the TDT and 0w40 formulations seem to fair substantially better than their "normal" grades.......

And I also don't think one test can be used to determine what oil is "better".....

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
I find it quite telling that Mobil no longer provides MSDSs on their website. You have to contact the sales office. Valvoline has there's right there on the website. Someone did decipher the MSDS of the 10w-30 Mobil 1 EP I believe it was, and it clearly stated a decent chunk of group III oil.


What?

http://www.msds.exxonmobil.com/psims/psims.aspx

I don't think you looked very hard.

 

[Drew99GT]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

And I also don't think one test can be used to determine what oil is "better".....


Indeed, almost a decade of UOA posted here is enough for me.

 

[buster]

I have an update on this. I spoke to someone from Mobil (not their tech support) and basically it's a non issue IMO.

Put it this way, you are allowed to have up to 90 microns of wear under the Seq IVA. Without compromising anyone's credibility, let's just say Mobil 1 scored way below that. I was given a number and out of respect won't post it. So as bruce said, it's taking something like 20 ppm and comparing it to 10 ppm and saying that there was a 50% reduction in wear and therefore that oil provides 50% better protection. Kind of misleading, yet factual from a pure numbers standpoint.

More importantly, while I do believe Valvoline to be a very good oil, they fail to have an oil that meets the Corvette spec and Honda HTO-06 which says a lot more than their vague comparison of "4 x better wear".

 

[JAG]

Thanks for the investigating and reporting buster!
Is the person you spoke in agreement with Valvoline's presented information?

 

[buster]

All things considered, no. Having a lower micron rating on the Seq IVA proves nothing when you single out just that particular test. What about oxidation stability, shear stability, deposit control, sludge control etc?

*Notice that Valvoline did not give any specific numbers.

 

[Valvman]

“Valvoline has noticed some questions regarding our recent SynPower
advertising campaign in the blogosphere and would like to take a minute to
address some of them.

In our advertising, we state that SynPower 5W-30 provides 4X better wear protection than Mobil 1 5W-30 as measured by the industry standard Sequence IVA wear test. Valvoline has run a number of Seq IVA tests to generate the data it is using to make the claim of 4X better wear protection. We chose the Sequence IVA test because it is the wear test used for API SM/ILSAC GF-4 licensing and it is ASTM controlled and approved. Of all the candidate oils tested in the Sequence IVA test only about 64% pass at the API SM level. The API SM level is 90 microns of wear or less to the cam lobes. For API SL oils the level is 120 microns of wear or less.

When Valvoline performed a Sequence IVA test on each of the two oils, we noted a significant performance difference. Because Valvoline's reputation is built on high quality products and the trust of its customers we wanted to be very confident of any claim we made. For us to make a claim based on these test results, those results had to have meaning for our consumers and be significant enough for us to feel that the claim has merit. This was not just a few microns of wear difference (e.g. 5 microns vs. 20 microns). The difference was significantly greater than that.

Our strong wear results are likely due to SynPower's carefully balanced formulation and the specific anti-wear additive package that we use. Our anti-wear additives stay in the oil longer than those used by other leading synthetic motor oils. We use high quality base oils from several different base oil suppliers (including ExxonMobil) that complement our additive chemistry. It's the combination of base oils and additive chemistry that give us our strong performance."