These days, yes, most dino oils are Group II and up in order to meet the more stringent requirements of the SL and GF-3 designations.
You don't see a lot on Havoline in the way of UOA's on this board. Honestly, we know Chevron generally does well. I'm only speculating when I say this, but given the nearly identical setup of each oil, I'm willing to bet that the Havoline holds its own just fine.
To that end, when I get it, my UOA of Havoline 5w20 will be posted whenever I get it...
Nope- In my 99 F150. The UOA should be in any day now.
I just did an oil change on the XJ last night though. Last batch of weak Valvoline All Climate 10w30 is out, I'll still do a UOA on it just out of curiosity. I'm trying the Shell Rotella T "synthetic" 5w40. Who says I only like "thin" oils?
Now this IS interesting. Yesterday someone started a discussion about base stocks in current conventional oils under the heading of, "How many companies still use Group I?. I responded that I felt no one used Group I these days, and noted that prior to the release of "SL" oils, even Equilon Havoline touted their use of Group IIs in their "SJ" rated oils on the backs of their bottles. What followed were several responses suggesting that up to 70% Group I base stocks are still in use in conventional current ("SL") oils. All based on, "Someone said..." or "I heard..." Over a year ago I downloaded a white paper from Union 76 about the then (dated June 11, 2001) upcoming debut of "SL/GF-3" motor oils" titled, "API SL/ILSAC GF-3 NEW SERVICE CATEGORY FOR PASSENGER CAR MOTOR OILS". On page 6, Union 76's position was that, "In order to meet these stricter volatility limits, API SL/GF-3 oils require the use of higher qualtiy base oils, especially for the lighter (and preferred) viscosity grades. SAE 5W-20 and 5W-30 oils cannot be formulated with 100% Group I base oils because they will not meet volatility limits; they require high percentages of Group II or Group II+ quality base oils." I may have been guily of overstating the use of Group IIs currently, but not by much. And I believe the case could be made that, after more than a year down the road (pun intended) with "SL" motor oils, the use of Group IIs generally is likely more than it was when the "SL" oils debuted. As speculative evidence, all the backs of various "SL" rated oils I've bothered to read, regardless of viscosity range, tout something along the lines of:
1> "Improved anti-Wear properties"
2> "Less oil consumption"
3> "Better fuel mileage"
4> "Better freedom from sludge and varnish buildup"
Advertising hype buzz phrases? Of course. But, there just may be a grain of truth to these claims, too. As for #1, most of us are aware that the reduction to trace levels of sulfated hydrocarbons and aromatics in Group IIs results in more of the desirable iso-paraffinic lube molecules. As for #2, both the previously listed undesirables are known for their instability and volatility at high tempratures, so their reduction from previous levels common to solvent refined Group Is would logically result in an improvement in oil consumption, too. As for #3, the conversion of residual wax to iso-paraffinic lube molecules (hydrogen isomerization) results in a higher viscosity index in the Group II base stocks. It would follow cold starts and drivability would improve, as would high temperature lubricity. (Aromatics make great solvents but terrible lubricants.) And, as for #4, those undesirable and unstable sulphated hydrocarbons and aromatics release free radicals (charged particles) when they break down just itching for the opportunity to encourage oxidation of other molecules. It's a vicious cycle that further encourages sludge and varnish formation.
As to the debate of Chevron Texaco Havoline vs. Chevron Supreme, look up both products' product data sheets and material safety data sheets. They read IDENTICALLY in ALL categories for ALL viscosity ranges except for the listed ASTM D 2896 Base Numbers - the Havoline is 0.2 HIGHER down the line than Chevron Supreme. I'm skeptical that Chevron would intentionally formulate their company branded premium conventional motor oil to a lesser quality level than that of their merger acquired Havoline name brand. Again, I could be wrong, but I'd bet this "discrepency" was either the result of a typo or sampling different production runs. Even if it was intentional, I don't see much (any?) practical performance difference significance between Havoline 10W-30 at 7.6 vs Chevron Supreme 10W-30 at 7.4, but, maybe I'm missing something... As far as I'm concerned, I'd buy either of these "brands" on price, and if I had to top up, I wouldn't lose any sleep at all which "brand" I did it with.
I emailed Chevron to try and determine the difference between Chevron Supreme and Havoline. Here's the text:
I understand your comments and, no, you would not choose an oil
based on the color or the name. You choose oils based on the OEM's
viscosity recommendation and API service category. Currently, our
Havoline and Supreme line carry the latest API specification which is
SL. Additionally, one thing that is found in both Havoline and Supreme
is that they are blended with Group II base oils which is a base oil
technology developed by ChevronTexaco and licensed out to other major
oil companies. This base oil (Group II) is of a higher quality (will
oxidize slower )then engine oils made with Group I base oils.
Either one you choose, you are purchasing a quality oil based on my
If additional assistance is needed, you may call us at 1-800-582-3835
and voice any additional concerns or doubts you may still have.
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 9:35 AM
To: Lube Tek Call Center
Subject: RE: EMAIL CHEVRON - Lubricants Technical Question
Thanks for the reply.
I understand some things have to be proprietary, but how is a person
supposed to choose between two products without any
information, just by whether he likes the name, or the color of the
From: Lube Tek Call Center [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 5:14 AM
Subject: RE: EMAIL CHEVRON - Lubricants Technical Question
Both the Havoline and Supreme line are different products with
their own unique additive package. Details about what makes them
different are confidential. "
Any comments, facts or opinions?
[ October 07, 2003, 12:42 PM: Message edited by: MarkC ]