Current OBJECTIVE 100% Synthetic Comparison Data?

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted By: EngineeringGeek


The geek in me has a vision of setting up a few dozen identical car engines that were carefully built to extremely similar tolerances. Each is coupled to an AC power generator that feeds the power grid much like a grid-tied solar system. And each is operated in an identical simulated driving dyno sort of way much like the EPA does for their fuel mileage and emissions testing. All the power generated would go to the grid recovering some of the fuel costs and making the whole thing more "green". All of these things are existing well proven technologies so this isn't science fiction.




Power recovery from electric dynamometers has been done since at least WW2. We used it at John Deere and Cummins in the 80's and 90's, and most engine test facilities have used it for decades. Only it isn't called "green". It's called "reducing operating costs". We had 88 test cells at Cummins. Burning all of that fuel and not getting something for it would just have been foolish.

 

[ltslimjim]

Originally Posted By: EngineeringGeek

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?


Any oil can get used up in extreme service, regardless of the app even. The difference would be if you wanted more headroom or perhaps to extend intervals out further than certain synthetics, each app is a dynamic experience. No one size fits all, all of the time. I believe most major names out there have products that can go far, after identifying your apps needs then it's all about what you want. If you want to save the most on oil cost, you'll buy Peak synthetic.

 

[EngineeringGeek]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: EngineeringGeek
I have to side with Castrol's view--especially because their oil generally outperforms M1.



Please substantiate this.


I'm under IOM's NDA (non-disclosure agreemnt) so I can't quote the numbers or show the reports. But you're welcome to pay for the reports there and see for yourself. There's also the fact Mobil has yet to dispute Castrol's very public claims of 8X less wear than M1. The independent reports show Castrol Edge has generally better numbers than M1 EP.

 

[ltslimjim]

Originally Posted By: EngineeringGeek
There's also the fact Mobil has yet to dispute Castrol's very public claims of 8X less wear than M1.


That is how many previous formulations ago?

Originally Posted By: EngineeringGeek

The independent reports show Castrol Edge has generally better numbers than M1 EP.


Let me guess, all in the area of iron with the latest information, too?

At least define 'independent reports': a UOA by a 3rd party or engine tear-down?

 

[EngineeringGeek]

Originally Posted By: ltslimjim

Let me guess, all in the area of iron with the latest information, too?

At least define 'independent reports': a UOA by a 3rd party or engine tear-down?


No, this is mostly based on more complete commercial reports on NEW oil and, as I said above, the tests go well beyond what you'll find in a typical UOA. These are 2010 and 2011 tests run the same way for both oils. I also reviewed several dozen UOAs as well.

It seems you favor M1 and that's fine. But I haven't seen any indpendent objective data to support it's significantly better overall. FWIW, I'm not likely to buy any Castrol so I'm not trying to defend Castrol here, just my methods and the fact all the major brands are more similar than different. As I mentioned earlier, my personal favorites so far are Valvoline Synpower and Pennzoil Platinum. They both beat M1 in the areas I'm most interested in. Castrol is thicker when cold and I make a lot of short trips.

You can dismiss the 8X claim if you want, but Mobil had a long time to dispute it and never did. I'm sure M1 fans will have their own theories, but common sense dictates Valovoline and Castrol probably did their homework before ever making such bold claims and were on solid objective ground.

 

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted By: EngineeringGeek
I did mean PAG as it's not compatible with other oils. I don't know how much it's used as motor oil. The rest of the base stock blending is proprietary.


I'm having trouble figuring out where you're coming from on this. How did you get onto using PAG for engine oil? You started off this thread wanting to get technical data from mass-market synthetics available at Wal-Mart, and now you've veered off into discussing PAG-based oils that would not be compatible with any oil available today. PAG is currently used in cars as lubricant for A/C compressors. Many additives would have to be developed to make it suitable for engine oil. What benefit would you expect to be gained from the effort?

 

[ltslimjim]

Originally Posted By: EngineeringGeek
Originally Posted By: ltslimjim

Let me guess, all in the area of iron with the latest information, too?

At least define 'independent reports': a UOA by a 3rd party or engine tear-down?


No, this is mostly based on more complete commercial reports on NEW oil and, as I said above, the tests go well beyond what you'll find in a typical UOA. These are 2010 and 2011 tests run the same way for both oils. I also reviewed several dozen UOAs as well.

It seems you favor M1 and that's fine. But I haven't seen any indpendent objective data to support it's significantly better overall. FWIW, I'm not likely to buy any Castrol so I'm not trying to defend Castrol here, just my methods and the fact all the major brands are more similar than different. As I mentioned earlier, my personal favorites so far are Valvoline Synpower and Pennzoil Platinum. They both beat M1 in the areas I'm most interested in. Castrol is thicker when cold and I make a lot of short trips.

You can dismiss the 8X claim if you want, but Mobil had a long time to dispute it and never did. I'm sure M1 fans will have their own theories, but common sense dictates Valovoline and Castrol probably did their homework before ever making such bold claims and were on solid objective ground.


Your comments are really vague and lack pointed facts. Don't comment on the test, fine. Simply share which areas YOU now 'know' Castrol outperformed Mobil1 EP.

By the way, I don't care one way or another about Mobil1 or XOM.

Mobil 1 did have iron issues before, AFAIK, and Castrol jumped on it. You missed my point the 8x claim was from the past, wasn't it?

 

[EngineeringGeek]

The PAG comment was only because the Amsoil guy here was trying to argue there are different definitions of "fully synthetic". I'm hardly promoting PAG as a motor oil. I was just trying to say there are many flavors of "synthetic" but, what matters most, is the the performance of the oil not the base stocks its made from unless it's an incompatible stock like PAG. I specifically mentioned PAG makes more sense for specialty applications--like A/C compressors.

The 8X claim was first made in 2009 and ran into 2010. It's not exactly ancient history. But you bring up a valid point that oils should ideally be re-tested when they're significantly reformulated. A lot of the test results being thrown around promoting some of the expensive oils are much older than 2009/2010.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: EngineeringGeek
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: EngineeringGeek
I have to side with Castrol's view--especially because their oil generally outperforms M1.



Please substantiate this.


I'm under IOM's NDA (non-disclosure agreemnt) so I can't quote the numbers or show the reports. But you're welcome to pay for the reports there and see for yourself. There's also the fact Mobil has yet to dispute Castrol's very public claims of 8X less wear than M1. The independent reports show Castrol Edge has generally better numbers than M1 EP.


That's convenient....

When you say "independent reports show Castrol Edge has generally better numbers than M1 EP" I assume this is through UOA's and not actual tear downs with measurements right?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: EngineeringGeek

You can dismiss the 8X claim if you want, but Mobil had a long time to dispute it and never did. I'm sure M1 fans will have their own theories, but common sense dictates Valovoline and Castrol probably did their homework before ever making such bold claims and were on solid objective ground.


Dispute?

They stated that the API confirmed that they passed the testing procedures. The API confirmed this was the case. That was their "response". They didn't get into a "marketing war" with Castrol, but they aren't out there slapping people with dipsticks or dumping sludge on people's cars either.

 

[Ben99GT]

Originally Posted By: EngineeringGeek
You can dismiss the 8X claim if you want, but Mobil had a long time to dispute it and never did. I'm sure M1 fans will have their own theories, but common sense dictates Valovoline and Castrol probably did their homework before ever making such bold claims and were on solid objective ground.


Even if there was substance to those claims, it's irrelevant at this point. Most (if not all) of these oils have been reformulated to meet/exceed the new API SN & ILSAC GF-5 standards. Those claims pertained to the previous SM/GF-4 Mobil 1 5W-30 solely.

I'm willing to wager that you won't see similar Sequence IVA claims from Castrol/Valvoline regarding the new SN/GF-5 Mobil 1 products that are currently on the shelves.

 

[CATERHAM]

Except Canada. We're still getting the Mobil SM GF-4 stuff.

 

[EngineeringGeek]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
That's convenient....

When you say "independent reports show Castrol Edge has generally better numbers than M1 EP" I assume this is through UOA's and not actual tear downs with measurements right?

Please see above. Already answered.

 

[Ben99GT]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Except Canada. We're still getting the Mobil SM GF-4 stuff.


Really? Old stock or Canadian regulations?

 

[Ben99GT]

Originally Posted By: EngineeringGeek
As I mentioned earlier, my personal favorites so far are Valvoline Synpower and Pennzoil Platinum. They both beat M1 in the areas I'm most interested in. Castrol is thicker when cold and I make a lot of short trips.


So let me get this straight, you see Castrol being thicker than M1 when cold as a desirable trait for short trips?

 

[FZ1]

Just look at one of the Amsoil websites. They tested 8 different oils. Gives you an idea of which oils may be better than others.

 

[EngineeringGeek]

Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: EngineeringGeek
As I mentioned earlier, my personal favorites so far are Valvoline Synpower and Pennzoil Platinum. They both beat M1 in the areas I'm most interested in. Castrol is thicker when cold and I make a lot of short trips.


So let me get this straight, you see Castrol being thicker than M1 when cold as a desirable trait for short trips?


No. Where do I say I want Castrol? In the sentence before what you quoted I said I won't be buying any Castrol. And in what you quoted I said my favorites are Synpower and Platinum. How do you get I think Castrol being thicker when cold is "desirable"? It's my least favorite of the 4 oils for my needs.

 

[EngineeringGeek]

Originally Posted By: FZ1
Just look at one of the Amsoil websites. They tested 8 different oils. Gives you an idea of which oils may be better than others.


Yeah, with studies paid for by Amsoil and/or selectively quoted that are mostly (entirely?) for old formulations of the competitors products. If you buy the reports on IOM you can compare current oils in a much less biased and marketing oriented way..

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: EngineeringGeek
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
That's convenient....

When you say "independent reports show Castrol Edge has generally better numbers than M1 EP" I assume this is through UOA's and not actual tear downs with measurements right?

Please see above. Already answered.


So this is what you are referring to:

Quote:
No, this is mostly based on more complete commercial reports on NEW oil and, as I said above, the tests go well beyond what you'll find in a typical UOA. These are 2010 and 2011 tests run the same way for both oils. I also reviewed several dozen UOAs as well.


?

If so, I still see no mention of tear downs.

 

[EngineeringGeek]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
If so, I still see no mention of tear downs.

That would be correct. Obviously if every major oil, in each of the popular grades, after each re-formulation, was independently dyno teardown tested on some else's nickel that would take a lot of motors and a lot of nickels. It's not gonna happen. So you have to go with the next best thing: Detailed lab analysis that goes well beyond UOA reports.

And, as I said earlier, read the Sequence IIIG tear down documents to see what a mess that test is. After reading it I'm not convinced tear down reports are better. There are just too many variables that are difficult to control--including the thickness of treatments and coatings on wear items, metalurgy, tolerances, break in/assembly lubes, etc. Highly repeatable lab measurements likely yield more consistent results as they can be done under much more controlled conditions.

If someone wants to know if drinking water has toxic levels of impurities they send a sample to a good lab. They don't force someone to drink it for 20 years and do an autopsy when they drop dead.