It seems I've partly found what I was after from IOM (institute of materials). The catch is you have to pay for it and, understandably, they don't want their data re-published. Apparently Dyson has a subscription service that allows partial access to the IOM database rather than buying individual reports from IOM.
Current OBJECTIVE 100% Synthetic Comparison Data?
- Thread starter EngineeringGeek
- Start date
- Status
You have come to a wrong place. You are asking for an impassionate scientific data set from a very passionate bunch of dilettantes. We have fun here under the guise of 'knowledge'.
Blakstone can not compete with real labs where they test the fluids in real time employing isotope radiography and such other methods of metrology. Different budgets..
Blakstone can not compete with real labs where they test the fluids in real time employing isotope radiography and such other methods of metrology. Different budgets..
Originally Posted By: Y_K
You have come to a wrong place. You are asking for an impassionate scientific data set from a very passionate bunch of dilettantes. We have fun here under the guise of 'knowledge'.
Blakstone can not compete with real labs where they test the fluids in real time employing isotope radiography and such other methods of metrology. Different budgets..
Thanks Y_K. I'm learning. I knew about APQI, and they provide some good data (although HTHS is missing) on mostly the least expensive oils and a bunch of off brands, but they don't test hardly any synthetics. They seem to be mostly interested in exposing really bad oils.
It does seem IOM has what I want if I'm willing to pay for it. As for the various licensed quality levels, you don't have to dig very deep to find there are still substantial differences in oils that pass even the most stringent of the common ratings (i.e. GF5).
Just reading about the development of the Sequence IIIG test is really enlightening with comments like "catestrophic destruction of camshaft lobes was noted but only with certain oils". So they now omit the camshaft lobe with greatest wear from the test results. Translation: One of the came lobes can be completely destroyed in the test but the oil still can pass. And this is the latest, and most stringent, version of the test.
You have come to a wrong place. You are asking for an impassionate scientific data set from a very passionate bunch of dilettantes. We have fun here under the guise of 'knowledge'.
Blakstone can not compete with real labs where they test the fluids in real time employing isotope radiography and such other methods of metrology. Different budgets..
Thanks Y_K. I'm learning. I knew about APQI, and they provide some good data (although HTHS is missing) on mostly the least expensive oils and a bunch of off brands, but they don't test hardly any synthetics. They seem to be mostly interested in exposing really bad oils.
It does seem IOM has what I want if I'm willing to pay for it. As for the various licensed quality levels, you don't have to dig very deep to find there are still substantial differences in oils that pass even the most stringent of the common ratings (i.e. GF5).
Just reading about the development of the Sequence IIIG test is really enlightening with comments like "catestrophic destruction of camshaft lobes was noted but only with certain oils". So they now omit the camshaft lobe with greatest wear from the test results. Translation: One of the came lobes can be completely destroyed in the test but the oil still can pass. And this is the latest, and most stringent, version of the test.
Here is an interactive tool from Lubrizol that is being passed around quite often. May give you some clarity as far as 'comparison' goes.
You get 140,000 miles on a Yugo and I might listen to what a guy has to say...
Chart sorta scary comparing API/ILSAC to ACEA A5/B5.
Originally Posted By: ltslimjim
Chart sorta scary comparing API/ILSAC to ACEA A5/B5.
Personally, I think what's scary is how often those charts are misinterpreted... This isn't directed at you--this is a common misconception that's been parroted frequency since those charts came out. If one is really concerned about the engine wear parameters, I'd strongly suggest actually reading the ACEA A5/B5-08 test protocol. It's definitely not a "better" spec, it's simply different--and frankly it has a lot less relevance to North American gasoline engines than does GF-5/SN testing.
Funny, this is the very first sentence in the link which you posted:
"The performance charts are not a literal translation of a performance specification and should not be used as a replacement for evaluating engine oil performance in accordance with the relevant vehicle manufacturer’s requirements."
I have a feeling that few people have actually read this, nor have they actually looked at the engine test protocol to determine wear.
Chart sorta scary comparing API/ILSAC to ACEA A5/B5.
Personally, I think what's scary is how often those charts are misinterpreted... This isn't directed at you--this is a common misconception that's been parroted frequency since those charts came out. If one is really concerned about the engine wear parameters, I'd strongly suggest actually reading the ACEA A5/B5-08 test protocol. It's definitely not a "better" spec, it's simply different--and frankly it has a lot less relevance to North American gasoline engines than does GF-5/SN testing.
Funny, this is the very first sentence in the link which you posted:
"The performance charts are not a literal translation of a performance specification and should not be used as a replacement for evaluating engine oil performance in accordance with the relevant vehicle manufacturer’s requirements."
I have a feeling that few people have actually read this, nor have they actually looked at the engine test protocol to determine wear.
Originally Posted By: ltslimjim
Chart sorta scary comparing API/ILSAC to ACEA A5/B5.
Yeah, using that link above it does seem scary. Just from reading the tests it's obvious A5 is a far tougher standard on many levels. And GF5 is a big step up from SM/SN. GM's Dexos1 adds its own twists to GF5.
Many of the name brand cheap 5W30 full synthetics (i.e. Synpower, Platinum, etc.) are A5 certified. Platinum is also Dexos1 certified.
I ordered some reports from IOM and have concluded the following for 5W30 and (mostly) A5 rated oils:
Valvoline Synpower and Penzoil Platinum are very close. Each edges the other out in a few categories but they're more similar than different. Platinum has a significantly higher TBN which could be useful for extended drain use. But the flip side is it's similarly worse for oxidation which might hurt it for long intervals.
Mobil 1's "Extended Performance" is typically cheaper than Penzoil Platinum at big box stores in jugs but its cold pumpability is notably worse as are several other measurements.
Castrol Syntec is even worse than Mobil 1 for cold pumpability--the numbers make it look more like a conventionally refined oil.
I won't name any names, but some of the "premium brands" that cost around twice as much as the above (or more) really don't have much of an advantage on paper--either when new or in lots of UOA's that I reviewed. I know some like to trumpet a test or two they ace, but all the basic numbers are usually +/- 15% of the $25/jug stuff.
All of the above oils have similar HTHS 150C performance which surprised me. They all easily clear the fairly strict A5 standard. I was expecting that to at least be a big difference with the expensive premium brands. But it's not.
Considering there's lots of evidence most engine wear happens during cold start up, my inclination is to favor the oils that do better when cold as, from the numbers I've seen, they don't give up anything significant at 150C in the HTHS test. That's especially important if you live in a cold climate and/or make lots of cold starts.
In terms of sludge/deposits Platinum and Synpower also seem to do at least as well as most of their competition. I don't really know which one will win at the end of a long change interval, but judging from the UOA's I've seen, the premium brands don't seem to have any real advantage there either. The UOA results I've seen seem more tied to the vehicle, its total mileage, climate, how it's used, etc. rather than the oil.
The ACEA A5 certification is a good start for extended drain use but it's been really interesting to look at indepedent test results. I think there's a lot of marketing hype and spin out there. The real differences are smaller than I expected.
This is also consistent with PQIA's tests of conventional name brand oils. The differences across the board were typically under 15% but they only run a few tests compared to IOM.
Chart sorta scary comparing API/ILSAC to ACEA A5/B5.
Yeah, using that link above it does seem scary. Just from reading the tests it's obvious A5 is a far tougher standard on many levels. And GF5 is a big step up from SM/SN. GM's Dexos1 adds its own twists to GF5.
Many of the name brand cheap 5W30 full synthetics (i.e. Synpower, Platinum, etc.) are A5 certified. Platinum is also Dexos1 certified.
I ordered some reports from IOM and have concluded the following for 5W30 and (mostly) A5 rated oils:
Valvoline Synpower and Penzoil Platinum are very close. Each edges the other out in a few categories but they're more similar than different. Platinum has a significantly higher TBN which could be useful for extended drain use. But the flip side is it's similarly worse for oxidation which might hurt it for long intervals.
Mobil 1's "Extended Performance" is typically cheaper than Penzoil Platinum at big box stores in jugs but its cold pumpability is notably worse as are several other measurements.
Castrol Syntec is even worse than Mobil 1 for cold pumpability--the numbers make it look more like a conventionally refined oil.
I won't name any names, but some of the "premium brands" that cost around twice as much as the above (or more) really don't have much of an advantage on paper--either when new or in lots of UOA's that I reviewed. I know some like to trumpet a test or two they ace, but all the basic numbers are usually +/- 15% of the $25/jug stuff.
All of the above oils have similar HTHS 150C performance which surprised me. They all easily clear the fairly strict A5 standard. I was expecting that to at least be a big difference with the expensive premium brands. But it's not.
Considering there's lots of evidence most engine wear happens during cold start up, my inclination is to favor the oils that do better when cold as, from the numbers I've seen, they don't give up anything significant at 150C in the HTHS test. That's especially important if you live in a cold climate and/or make lots of cold starts.
In terms of sludge/deposits Platinum and Synpower also seem to do at least as well as most of their competition. I don't really know which one will win at the end of a long change interval, but judging from the UOA's I've seen, the premium brands don't seem to have any real advantage there either. The UOA results I've seen seem more tied to the vehicle, its total mileage, climate, how it's used, etc. rather than the oil.
The ACEA A5 certification is a good start for extended drain use but it's been really interesting to look at indepedent test results. I think there's a lot of marketing hype and spin out there. The real differences are smaller than I expected.
This is also consistent with PQIA's tests of conventional name brand oils. The differences across the board were typically under 15% but they only run a few tests compared to IOM.
Originally Posted By: EngineeringGeek
Some here claim they're all about the same while others claim big differences. A proper comparison test would go a long way to resolving a lot of the conflicting information.
I've never heard anyone say that "they're all the same". What I have heard frequently is that all name-brand oils which meet the manufacturer's specifications will protect adequately; and this really seems to be true.
As far as a comparison test, I guess I'd have to ask "what are the attributes for which you're trying to test"? Some things, such as an oil's VI and the composition of the additive back, and pretty well-documented. If you're looking for a comparison test for something nebulous like "wear reduction", first you'd have to define "wear", because it can mean a lot of different things. The certification standards for ILSAC, API and ACEA aren't a joke, nor are manufacturer-specific certifications. If an oil meets these, any thing additional is simply playing around the margin.
Some here claim they're all about the same while others claim big differences. A proper comparison test would go a long way to resolving a lot of the conflicting information.
I've never heard anyone say that "they're all the same". What I have heard frequently is that all name-brand oils which meet the manufacturer's specifications will protect adequately; and this really seems to be true.
As far as a comparison test, I guess I'd have to ask "what are the attributes for which you're trying to test"? Some things, such as an oil's VI and the composition of the additive back, and pretty well-documented. If you're looking for a comparison test for something nebulous like "wear reduction", first you'd have to define "wear", because it can mean a lot of different things. The certification standards for ILSAC, API and ACEA aren't a joke, nor are manufacturer-specific certifications. If an oil meets these, any thing additional is simply playing around the margin.
Originally Posted By: JOD
Originally Posted By: ltslimjim
Chart sorta scary comparing API/ILSAC to ACEA A5/B5.
Personally, I think what's scary is how often those charts are misinterpreted... This isn't directed at you--this is a common misconception that's been parroted frequency since those charts came out. If one is really concerned about the engine wear parameters, I'd strongly suggest actually reading the ACEA A5/B5-08 test protocol. It's definitely not a "better" spec, it's simply different--and frankly it has a lot less relevance to North American gasoline engines than does GF-5/SN testing.
Funny, this is the very first sentence in the link which you posted:
"The performance charts are not a literal translation of a performance specification and should not be used as a replacement for evaluating engine oil performance in accordance with the relevant vehicle manufacturer’s requirements."
I have a feeling that few people have actually read this, nor have they actually looked at the engine test protocol to determine wear.
Yeah, it's a pretty rough translation if you interpret those results without realizing the fine print. The specs of various oil standards have tests to look at certain areas in particular(not necessarily all included in such 'graphs/charts'), thus not necessarily indicating less or better quality in other areas not tested/graphed out that another spec does not 'seem' to be tested much against as far as passing certs, as it were. At least, certain tests/requirements in similar areas(per whatever spec) don't match up with the tests/requirements from another spec in that same area.
The ACEA is more related to diesel apps, right?
Originally Posted By: ltslimjim
Chart sorta scary comparing API/ILSAC to ACEA A5/B5.
Personally, I think what's scary is how often those charts are misinterpreted... This isn't directed at you--this is a common misconception that's been parroted frequency since those charts came out. If one is really concerned about the engine wear parameters, I'd strongly suggest actually reading the ACEA A5/B5-08 test protocol. It's definitely not a "better" spec, it's simply different--and frankly it has a lot less relevance to North American gasoline engines than does GF-5/SN testing.
Funny, this is the very first sentence in the link which you posted:
"The performance charts are not a literal translation of a performance specification and should not be used as a replacement for evaluating engine oil performance in accordance with the relevant vehicle manufacturer’s requirements."
I have a feeling that few people have actually read this, nor have they actually looked at the engine test protocol to determine wear.
Yeah, it's a pretty rough translation if you interpret those results without realizing the fine print. The specs of various oil standards have tests to look at certain areas in particular(not necessarily all included in such 'graphs/charts'), thus not necessarily indicating less or better quality in other areas not tested/graphed out that another spec does not 'seem' to be tested much against as far as passing certs, as it were. At least, certain tests/requirements in similar areas(per whatever spec) don't match up with the tests/requirements from another spec in that same area.
The ACEA is more related to diesel apps, right?
Last edited:
@JOD, see my recent posts above.
As for the standards I agree they're not a joke and I have read (or at least skimmed through) several of the long PDFs. I agree Europe has some different requirements but a lot of it is relatively applicable in N.A. Unless I missed something I didn't find a US-based standard that specifically addresses long oil change intervals as fully as the Euro A5 standard does (and some Euro manufactures like VW and BMW do with their own standards).
But reading the GF5 Sequence IIIG engine test development document was like reading a novel with a fair amount of drama surrounding conflicting interests, test failures, unexpected results, etc. What they ended up with is clearly a compromise. And while some claim it offers "reasonable discrimination" between oil quality levels it's just as easy to argue it doesn't--especially with destroyed cam lobes for a passing oil.
There's no question oil certifications are getting better. And I generally agree those who gently use their vehicles in ways that never stress the oil, and follow the vehicle manufacture's service guidelines, can probably use most any name brand GF4 or better oil and be fine.
For those who do stress their oil in one or more ways, or are aiming for long change intervals, it's useful to be able to compare different oils in a fair way that goes beyond the rather sketchy, and sometimes apparently optmistic, manufacture's oil data and the US certification levels.
In the USA coprorate greed often takes priority over common sense, engineering data, and environment concerns. So there's a steep resistance to longer change intervals as that means a lot less revenue for all sorts of different business along the automotive food chain and the big oil companies.
Some new car manuals pretty much say unless you drive your car 10+ miles every trip in light traffic, on relatively level terrain, between 50 and 75 degrees F, and never during a full moon, you need to follow the "severe" service schedule with frequent changes. You risk voiding the warranty if you don't. They can query the engine management computer to find average speeds driven, etc. There are documented cases of severe engine failures not being covered under warranty.
Service departments are big profit centers for car dealers. And having customers come in two or three times more often then they probably need to adds up to big money. Groups like SAE support the status quo. It's funny the cars with the long oil change intervals tend to be the European ones with free maintenance--i.e. BMW, VW, etc. When the manufactures have to pay for it, suddenly 12,500 miles is OK between changes.
So that's a long way of saying I like the Euro A5 standard better. They seem more open to longer change intervals and made a better effort to find what sorts of oils work best for that application. I have both a brand new car under warranty and an older car out of warranty. I'll probably change the new car's oil every 3750/6 months to stay clear of any warranty issues. That's one reason I don't want to pay $9+/quart for oil--especially when it tests no better than the stuff that's under $5/quart.
As for the standards I agree they're not a joke and I have read (or at least skimmed through) several of the long PDFs. I agree Europe has some different requirements but a lot of it is relatively applicable in N.A. Unless I missed something I didn't find a US-based standard that specifically addresses long oil change intervals as fully as the Euro A5 standard does (and some Euro manufactures like VW and BMW do with their own standards).
But reading the GF5 Sequence IIIG engine test development document was like reading a novel with a fair amount of drama surrounding conflicting interests, test failures, unexpected results, etc. What they ended up with is clearly a compromise. And while some claim it offers "reasonable discrimination" between oil quality levels it's just as easy to argue it doesn't--especially with destroyed cam lobes for a passing oil.
There's no question oil certifications are getting better. And I generally agree those who gently use their vehicles in ways that never stress the oil, and follow the vehicle manufacture's service guidelines, can probably use most any name brand GF4 or better oil and be fine.
For those who do stress their oil in one or more ways, or are aiming for long change intervals, it's useful to be able to compare different oils in a fair way that goes beyond the rather sketchy, and sometimes apparently optmistic, manufacture's oil data and the US certification levels.
In the USA coprorate greed often takes priority over common sense, engineering data, and environment concerns. So there's a steep resistance to longer change intervals as that means a lot less revenue for all sorts of different business along the automotive food chain and the big oil companies.
Some new car manuals pretty much say unless you drive your car 10+ miles every trip in light traffic, on relatively level terrain, between 50 and 75 degrees F, and never during a full moon, you need to follow the "severe" service schedule with frequent changes. You risk voiding the warranty if you don't. They can query the engine management computer to find average speeds driven, etc. There are documented cases of severe engine failures not being covered under warranty.
Service departments are big profit centers for car dealers. And having customers come in two or three times more often then they probably need to adds up to big money. Groups like SAE support the status quo. It's funny the cars with the long oil change intervals tend to be the European ones with free maintenance--i.e. BMW, VW, etc. When the manufactures have to pay for it, suddenly 12,500 miles is OK between changes.
So that's a long way of saying I like the Euro A5 standard better. They seem more open to longer change intervals and made a better effort to find what sorts of oils work best for that application. I have both a brand new car under warranty and an older car out of warranty. I'll probably change the new car's oil every 3750/6 months to stay clear of any warranty issues. That's one reason I don't want to pay $9+/quart for oil--especially when it tests no better than the stuff that's under $5/quart.
Originally Posted By: EngineeringGeek
In the USA coprorate greed often takes priority over common sense, engineering data, and environment concerns. So there's a steep resistance to longer change intervals ...
In Europe corporate greed works differently: $40-$60 per litre of real syn oil and you can extend your ODI all you want.
Thank you for doing comparison of white papers and sharing your synopsis with us.
In the USA coprorate greed often takes priority over common sense, engineering data, and environment concerns. So there's a steep resistance to longer change intervals ...
In Europe corporate greed works differently: $40-$60 per litre of real syn oil and you can extend your ODI all you want.
Thank you for doing comparison of white papers and sharing your synopsis with us.
Originally Posted By: EngineeringGeek
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: EngineeringGeek
You mentioned:
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: EngineeringGeek
You mentioned:
EngineeringGeek said:
I've read some of the debate over base stocks (III+ vs IV, PAO, etc.). And I'm aware some premium synthetics use more expensive base stocks. But when it comes to mainstream consumer oil in 5 quart jugs from Wal Mart it should be fairly obvious when someone says "full synthetic" what they're talking about. All the major brands market conventional oils, blends, and full synthetics.
I'm not convinced the expensive PAG-based synthetics are a good idea unless they're used from the very first factory fill. And even then it's not clear PAG offers any significant real-world advantages as an engine oil for street vehicles. It's great for some more specialized applications.
Another problem I have with some of the premium brands is they present some of the certifications in misleading ways. Several put language, symbols, artwork, etc. on the containers that imply they have more certifications than they really do. Some premium oils, including at least some from RLI, have no licensed certifications at all. Others make claims that don't add up--like Amsoil claiming ACEA A5 for a 5W20 oil that doesn't even meet the A5 specs.
But even if the uncertified premium motor oils are great products, the ones I've looked at do no better at lubricating in extreme conditions (HTHS viscosity at 150C), pumping at cold temps, preventing oxidation and acid build up, preventing sludge, etc. They have similar viscosities, flash points, TBN's, additives, etc. Their supposedly better stocks don't seem like much of a real world advantage even reviewing UOA reports of used oil.
Someone can say his Mercedes is quicker than his friend's BMW but the real proof is to subject both cars to track testing under controlled conditions. That's all I'm trying to do with oils--separate the claims and emotions from the real facts.
I'm not convinced the expensive PAG-based synthetics are a good idea unless they're used from the very first factory fill. And even then it's not clear PAG offers any significant real-world advantages as an engine oil for street vehicles. It's great for some more specialized applications.
Another problem I have with some of the premium brands is they present some of the certifications in misleading ways. Several put language, symbols, artwork, etc. on the containers that imply they have more certifications than they really do. Some premium oils, including at least some from RLI, have no licensed certifications at all. Others make claims that don't add up--like Amsoil claiming ACEA A5 for a 5W20 oil that doesn't even meet the A5 specs.
But even if the uncertified premium motor oils are great products, the ones I've looked at do no better at lubricating in extreme conditions (HTHS viscosity at 150C), pumping at cold temps, preventing oxidation and acid build up, preventing sludge, etc. They have similar viscosities, flash points, TBN's, additives, etc. Their supposedly better stocks don't seem like much of a real world advantage even reviewing UOA reports of used oil.
Someone can say his Mercedes is quicker than his friend's BMW but the real proof is to subject both cars to track testing under controlled conditions. That's all I'm trying to do with oils--separate the claims and emotions from the real facts.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: EngineeringGeek
I've read some of the debate over base stocks (III+ vs IV, PAO, etc.). And I'm aware some premium synthetics use more expensive base stocks. But when it comes to mainstream consumer oil in 5 quart jugs from Wal Mart it should be fairly obvious when someone says "full synthetic" what they're talking about. All the major brands market conventional oils, blends, and full synthetics.
I don't think it's all that obvious. Group IV IS PAO, for example. But it does seem like you are becoming aware of the Castrol NAD win concerning Group III and the use of the word synthetic verses truly synthesized base oils. That said - the performance of the finished product is what counts. Amsoil has some of all, well no conventionals, but one blend. That's what I was trying to get across - when comparing Amsoil, don't use the price of the Sig series, use the OE price to compare to like oils you speak of. More apples to apples.
Originally Posted By: EngineeringGeek
I'm not convinced the expensive PAG-based synthetics are a good idea unless they're used from the very first factory fill. And even then it's not clear PAG offers any significant real-world advantages as an engine oil for street vehicles. It's great for some more specialized applications.
PAG? Not many motor oils are polyalkylene glycol based. Maybe you mean PAO?
Originally Posted By: EngineeringGeek
Another problem I have with some of the premium brands is they present some of the certifications in misleading ways. Several put language, symbols, artwork, etc. on the containers that imply they have more certifications than they really do. Some premium oils, including at least some from RLI, have no licensed certifications at all. Others make claims that don't add up--like Amsoil claiming ACEA A5 for a 5W20 oil that doesn't even meet the A5 specs.
True. I can speak to the Amsoil example, I pointed that out last month. They agreed it was an error and their IT guy has yet to change it. On a whole Amsoil is fairly clear what certifications and which ones don't.
Originally Posted By: EngineeringGeek
But even if the uncertified premium motor oils are great products, the ones I've looked at do no better at lubricating in extreme conditions (HTHS viscosity at 150C), pumping at cold temps, preventing oxidation and acid build up, preventing sludge, etc. They have similar viscosities, flash points, TBN's, additives, etc. Their supposedly better stocks don't seem like much of a real world advantage even reviewing UOA reports of used oil.
First all UOA's are marginal for judging such things, but I don't think you can marginally deny the add packs and base oils are without merit. Sure they have similar viscosities to fit within the SAE Viscosity categories ("grades") and their are often many trade offs in viscosity measurements, but to say they "do no better at lubricating in extreme conditions (HTHS viscosity at 150C), pumping at cold temps, preventing oxidation and acid build up, preventing sludge, etc." is based on what? UOA's? Hmm....I simply don't agree based on engine tear downs. I do agree if you aren't racing or doing extended oil changes then no need. But to say TRUE synthetic oils oxidize and break down as fast as any other oils, is not correct.
I've read some of the debate over base stocks (III+ vs IV, PAO, etc.). And I'm aware some premium synthetics use more expensive base stocks. But when it comes to mainstream consumer oil in 5 quart jugs from Wal Mart it should be fairly obvious when someone says "full synthetic" what they're talking about. All the major brands market conventional oils, blends, and full synthetics.
I don't think it's all that obvious. Group IV IS PAO, for example. But it does seem like you are becoming aware of the Castrol NAD win concerning Group III and the use of the word synthetic verses truly synthesized base oils. That said - the performance of the finished product is what counts. Amsoil has some of all, well no conventionals, but one blend. That's what I was trying to get across - when comparing Amsoil, don't use the price of the Sig series, use the OE price to compare to like oils you speak of. More apples to apples.
Originally Posted By: EngineeringGeek
I'm not convinced the expensive PAG-based synthetics are a good idea unless they're used from the very first factory fill. And even then it's not clear PAG offers any significant real-world advantages as an engine oil for street vehicles. It's great for some more specialized applications.
PAG? Not many motor oils are polyalkylene glycol based. Maybe you mean PAO?
Originally Posted By: EngineeringGeek
Another problem I have with some of the premium brands is they present some of the certifications in misleading ways. Several put language, symbols, artwork, etc. on the containers that imply they have more certifications than they really do. Some premium oils, including at least some from RLI, have no licensed certifications at all. Others make claims that don't add up--like Amsoil claiming ACEA A5 for a 5W20 oil that doesn't even meet the A5 specs.
True. I can speak to the Amsoil example, I pointed that out last month. They agreed it was an error and their IT guy has yet to change it. On a whole Amsoil is fairly clear what certifications and which ones don't.
Originally Posted By: EngineeringGeek
But even if the uncertified premium motor oils are great products, the ones I've looked at do no better at lubricating in extreme conditions (HTHS viscosity at 150C), pumping at cold temps, preventing oxidation and acid build up, preventing sludge, etc. They have similar viscosities, flash points, TBN's, additives, etc. Their supposedly better stocks don't seem like much of a real world advantage even reviewing UOA reports of used oil.
First all UOA's are marginal for judging such things, but I don't think you can marginally deny the add packs and base oils are without merit. Sure they have similar viscosities to fit within the SAE Viscosity categories ("grades") and their are often many trade offs in viscosity measurements, but to say they "do no better at lubricating in extreme conditions (HTHS viscosity at 150C), pumping at cold temps, preventing oxidation and acid build up, preventing sludge, etc." is based on what? UOA's? Hmm....I simply don't agree based on engine tear downs. I do agree if you aren't racing or doing extended oil changes then no need. But to say TRUE synthetic oils oxidize and break down as fast as any other oils, is not correct.
Great explanation Pablo.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
EngineeringGeek said:
Last edited:
^Treading on facts to suit theories and not theories to suit facts there, eh?
Until now, I'd say Amsoil definitely has extended performance muscles to flex. Yeah, a lot of apps don't need it and get good results with cheaper priced products. I think the point Pablo was making was that Amsoil simply has more headroom for extended drains. Not necessarily that 1 oil from group III(mostly, etc) will simply allow/cause more wear than Amsoil by being used outright.
To be funny you could compare one of their Signature Series oils and an OE product.
There, you get your $4.50/quart oil vs the $12/quart stuff.
Until now, I'd say Amsoil definitely has extended performance muscles to flex. Yeah, a lot of apps don't need it and get good results with cheaper priced products. I think the point Pablo was making was that Amsoil simply has more headroom for extended drains. Not necessarily that 1 oil from group III(mostly, etc) will simply allow/cause more wear than Amsoil by being used outright.
To be funny you could compare one of their Signature Series oils and an OE product.
There, you get your $4.50/quart oil vs the $12/quart stuff.
Originally Posted By: ltslimjim
I think the point Pablo was making was that Amsoil simply has more headroom for extended drains. Not necessarily that 1 oil from group III(mostly, etc) will simply allow/cause more wear than Amsoil by being used outright.
The thing is, I'm not sure what objective and unbiased (as in not paid for by someone in the Amsoil MLM empire) evidence there is to support that Amsoil, or any other premium oil, can better handle long change intervals? Their TBN starts out at similar levels and degrades at similar rates. They suffer the same issues with fuel/water dillution. They suffer similar viscosity changes after similar periods of time. Their HTHS performance is similar when new and used. Etc.
From what I've seen any oil with genuine A5 certification, which includes some of the $23 5 qt jug products like Synpower, M1 EP, Castrol Syntec Edge, and Platinum, can perform very similarly for long change intervals to the premium oils. If someone has some impartial objective data to the contrary, please point me in that direction?
I think the point Pablo was making was that Amsoil simply has more headroom for extended drains. Not necessarily that 1 oil from group III(mostly, etc) will simply allow/cause more wear than Amsoil by being used outright.
The thing is, I'm not sure what objective and unbiased (as in not paid for by someone in the Amsoil MLM empire) evidence there is to support that Amsoil, or any other premium oil, can better handle long change intervals? Their TBN starts out at similar levels and degrades at similar rates. They suffer the same issues with fuel/water dillution. They suffer similar viscosity changes after similar periods of time. Their HTHS performance is similar when new and used. Etc.
From what I've seen any oil with genuine A5 certification, which includes some of the $23 5 qt jug products like Synpower, M1 EP, Castrol Syntec Edge, and Platinum, can perform very similarly for long change intervals to the premium oils. If someone has some impartial objective data to the contrary, please point me in that direction?
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: EngineeringGeek
I have to side with Castrol's view--especially because their oil generally outperforms M1.
Please substantiate this.
I have to side with Castrol's view--especially because their oil generally outperforms M1.
Please substantiate this.
- Status
Similar threads
