Current OBJECTIVE 100% Synthetic Comparison Data?
- Thread starter EngineeringGeek
- Start date
- Status
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: 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.
Actually, a lot of the oil companies DO do extensive tear-down and fleet testing.
Doug Hillary has been involved in it extensively throughout his career. He ran fleet test of several million Km's on Delvac 1 for Mobil.
He also did testing for BP, SOPUS....etc.
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.
Actually, a lot of the oil companies DO do extensive tear-down and fleet testing.
Doug Hillary has been involved in it extensively throughout his career. He ran fleet test of several million Km's on Delvac 1 for Mobil.
He also did testing for BP, SOPUS....etc.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Actually, a lot of the oil companies DO do extensive tear-down and fleet testing.
Yeah, the key word I used was "independent". I know the oil companies have deep pockets.
Consumer Reports did a big NYC taxi fleet test comparing conventional oil to full synthetic and found no meaningful difference doing tear downs. NYC cabs probably don't have many really cold starts relative to the hours/miles run. So that's at least one area (that matters to me) where a synthetic might show a significant advantage.
Actually, a lot of the oil companies DO do extensive tear-down and fleet testing.
Yeah, the key word I used was "independent". I know the oil companies have deep pockets.
Consumer Reports did a big NYC taxi fleet test comparing conventional oil to full synthetic and found no meaningful difference doing tear downs. NYC cabs probably don't have many really cold starts relative to the hours/miles run. So that's at least one area (that matters to me) where a synthetic might show a significant advantage.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: EngineeringGeek
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Actually, a lot of the oil companies DO do extensive tear-down and fleet testing.
Yeah, the key word I used was "independent". I know the oil companies have deep pockets.
Consumer Reports did a big NYC taxi fleet test comparing conventional oil to full synthetic and found no meaningful difference doing tear downs. NYC cabs probably don't have many really cold starts relative to the hours/miles run. So that's at least one area (that matters to me) where a synthetic might show a significant advantage.
OK, well I understand where you are coming from here. Doug was definitely an "independent" tester, but I am quite certain the oil companies paid for the work and tear-downs he performed.
I'm not sure how that fits in with what you are thinking.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Actually, a lot of the oil companies DO do extensive tear-down and fleet testing.
Yeah, the key word I used was "independent". I know the oil companies have deep pockets.
Consumer Reports did a big NYC taxi fleet test comparing conventional oil to full synthetic and found no meaningful difference doing tear downs. NYC cabs probably don't have many really cold starts relative to the hours/miles run. So that's at least one area (that matters to me) where a synthetic might show a significant advantage.
OK, well I understand where you are coming from here. Doug was definitely an "independent" tester, but I am quite certain the oil companies paid for the work and tear-downs he performed.
I'm not sure how that fits in with what you are thinking.
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Really? Old stock or Canadian regulations?
Old stock and/or old labeling. I've seen some SN/GF-5 M1 up here, but not a lot yet - mostly in the one litre jugs of all things.
Really? Old stock or Canadian regulations?
Old stock and/or old labeling. I've seen some SN/GF-5 M1 up here, but not a lot yet - mostly in the one litre jugs of all things.
EngineeringGeek,
The fallacy of your quest,in my opinion, is that even IF your are able to compile a list of "best oils" ranked according to laboratory tests of various properties, these oils may perform different regarding overall best performance during real world use.
For instance, you have already chosen two oils that you feel are better according to data indicating better cold performance. There might be other attributes of these two oils that look o.k. on paper, but might perform very poor in your engines, negating any gains of your cold performance choice.
I learned this basic idea from the late Stinky Peterson (RIP) of Butler CAT oil labs. He said after years of evaluating many thousands of oil samples, he could not pick the holy grail of oils based on their laboratory properties.
The fallacy of your quest,in my opinion, is that even IF your are able to compile a list of "best oils" ranked according to laboratory tests of various properties, these oils may perform different regarding overall best performance during real world use.
For instance, you have already chosen two oils that you feel are better according to data indicating better cold performance. There might be other attributes of these two oils that look o.k. on paper, but might perform very poor in your engines, negating any gains of your cold performance choice.
I learned this basic idea from the late Stinky Peterson (RIP) of Butler CAT oil labs. He said after years of evaluating many thousands of oil samples, he could not pick the holy grail of oils based on their laboratory properties.
Originally Posted By: doitmyself
EngineeringGeek,
The fallacy of your quest,in my opinion, is that even IF your are able to compile a list of "best oils" ranked according to laboratory tests of various properties, these oils may perform different regarding overall best performance during real world use.
For instance, you have already chosen two oils that you feel are better according to data indicating better cold performance. There might be other attributes of these two oils that look o.k. on paper, but might perform very poor in your engines, negating any gains of your cold performance choice.
I learned this basic idea from the late Stinky Peterson (RIP) of Butler CAT oil labs. He said after years of evaluating many thousands of oil samples, he could not pick the holy grail of oils based on their laboratory properties.
Do you have a better suggestion? What you're basically saying is there's no way to know how the current crop of oils perform if you want to exclude lab measurements. So if that's true we might all just as well assign each oil a number and roll the dice? My method may not be perfect but I like it better than just following Uncle George's advice because he seems to know cars and always had good luck with oil from the Quick-E-Mart or $20 a quart stuff that's so expensive it just HAS to be good.
EngineeringGeek,
The fallacy of your quest,in my opinion, is that even IF your are able to compile a list of "best oils" ranked according to laboratory tests of various properties, these oils may perform different regarding overall best performance during real world use.
For instance, you have already chosen two oils that you feel are better according to data indicating better cold performance. There might be other attributes of these two oils that look o.k. on paper, but might perform very poor in your engines, negating any gains of your cold performance choice.
I learned this basic idea from the late Stinky Peterson (RIP) of Butler CAT oil labs. He said after years of evaluating many thousands of oil samples, he could not pick the holy grail of oils based on their laboratory properties.
Do you have a better suggestion? What you're basically saying is there's no way to know how the current crop of oils perform if you want to exclude lab measurements. So if that's true we might all just as well assign each oil a number and roll the dice? My method may not be perfect but I like it better than just following Uncle George's advice because he seems to know cars and always had good luck with oil from the Quick-E-Mart or $20 a quart stuff that's so expensive it just HAS to be good.
Quote:
Do you have a better gestion?sug What you're basically saying is there's no way to know how the current crop of oils perform if you want to exclude lab measurements.
No, I am saying that you cannot rank one oil best or better simply by comparing lab tests. You can compare and maybe eliminate a few, then only guess which of the remaining is better.
I got into an argument here years ago regarding HDEO oil shearing. Old Stinky showed me oils ranked according to the Orbahn shear test. Then he pulled many hundreds of real world UOAs (fuel dilution samples eliminated) and proved that the lab tests didn't mimic real world results. This was just ONE parameter. I still have that outdated data, if interested. Some "better regarded" oils performed poorly in this regard, and vice versa.
Over the past ten years we have discussed the idea of determining the best oil ad nauseum and in my opinion it is the equivalent of going snipe hunting.
Do you have a better gestion?sug What you're basically saying is there's no way to know how the current crop of oils perform if you want to exclude lab measurements.
No, I am saying that you cannot rank one oil best or better simply by comparing lab tests. You can compare and maybe eliminate a few, then only guess which of the remaining is better.
I got into an argument here years ago regarding HDEO oil shearing. Old Stinky showed me oils ranked according to the Orbahn shear test. Then he pulled many hundreds of real world UOAs (fuel dilution samples eliminated) and proved that the lab tests didn't mimic real world results. This was just ONE parameter. I still have that outdated data, if interested. Some "better regarded" oils performed poorly in this regard, and vice versa.
Over the past ten years we have discussed the idea of determining the best oil ad nauseum and in my opinion it is the equivalent of going snipe hunting.
Originally Posted By: doitmyself
No, I am saying that you cannot rank one oil best or better simply by comparing lab tests. You can compare and maybe eliminate a few, then only guess which of the remaining is better.
Perhaps I've not been clear, but that's pretty much what I've done so far. I started with five, eliminated a couple, and I'm down to two favorites. This is for my needs only. Someone else may have different requirements, priorities, etc.
Between my two favorites I really can't pick a winner. They each have a few minor pluses over the other. Like I said earlier, the Platinum for example has higher TBN but does worse for oxidization. I doubt I would notice any difference between them for as long as I'll have the car.
In fairness some of the lab tests are relatively black and white. Cold pumpability would be a good example. It's probably safe to say if brand X has half the viscosity in the exact same test it's going to work better and faster at cold temps and better protect the engine during every cold start.
The other extreme is harder to predict. HTHS at 150C is a reasonable guide but it's obviously not indicative of the performance in every type of bearing, rocker arm, cam lobe, oil flow, oil pressure, etc. But unless you say drive an old Buick with the 3800 Series II pushrod V6 used for the GF tests, nothing really will tell you exactly how an oil will perform in your enging. And, by the way, those test V6s are built with many custom/modified parts just for the testing and much tighter tolerances than the production versions. So even the bench engines don't represent anything in the real world.
And fleet testing, of course, is totally different than how most of us drive. And those too are often different vehicles. And one taxi might have a road-raged cabbie with his foot to the floor half the time and another might have Grandpa Joe who never uses more than quarter throttle. It's obvious which engine will have more wear regardless of the oil used.
The launch surface at different drag strips has an impact on performance. If my car does the quarter in 13 seconds flat on a given strip it may well be faster or slower at a different strip on a different day. But if I test my car and your car using the same track, lane, driver, timing lights, fuel, air temp, etc. now we have a decent basis to say argue who has the quicker car.
For those who just want to want to sit back and guess which car is faster based on what the owners and car manufactures claim, suit yourself. I'm trying to take a different approach.
To me the independent and hopefully unbiased lab results are a massive improvement over using marketing oriented manufacture supplied/sponsored information, anecdotal/UOA reports in different cars/climates/applications, price, or Uncle George's advice.
No, I am saying that you cannot rank one oil best or better simply by comparing lab tests. You can compare and maybe eliminate a few, then only guess which of the remaining is better.
Perhaps I've not been clear, but that's pretty much what I've done so far. I started with five, eliminated a couple, and I'm down to two favorites. This is for my needs only. Someone else may have different requirements, priorities, etc.
Between my two favorites I really can't pick a winner. They each have a few minor pluses over the other. Like I said earlier, the Platinum for example has higher TBN but does worse for oxidization. I doubt I would notice any difference between them for as long as I'll have the car.
In fairness some of the lab tests are relatively black and white. Cold pumpability would be a good example. It's probably safe to say if brand X has half the viscosity in the exact same test it's going to work better and faster at cold temps and better protect the engine during every cold start.
The other extreme is harder to predict. HTHS at 150C is a reasonable guide but it's obviously not indicative of the performance in every type of bearing, rocker arm, cam lobe, oil flow, oil pressure, etc. But unless you say drive an old Buick with the 3800 Series II pushrod V6 used for the GF tests, nothing really will tell you exactly how an oil will perform in your enging. And, by the way, those test V6s are built with many custom/modified parts just for the testing and much tighter tolerances than the production versions. So even the bench engines don't represent anything in the real world.
And fleet testing, of course, is totally different than how most of us drive. And those too are often different vehicles. And one taxi might have a road-raged cabbie with his foot to the floor half the time and another might have Grandpa Joe who never uses more than quarter throttle. It's obvious which engine will have more wear regardless of the oil used.
The launch surface at different drag strips has an impact on performance. If my car does the quarter in 13 seconds flat on a given strip it may well be faster or slower at a different strip on a different day. But if I test my car and your car using the same track, lane, driver, timing lights, fuel, air temp, etc. now we have a decent basis to say argue who has the quicker car.
For those who just want to want to sit back and guess which car is faster based on what the owners and car manufactures claim, suit yourself. I'm trying to take a different approach.
To me the independent and hopefully unbiased lab results are a massive improvement over using marketing oriented manufacture supplied/sponsored information, anecdotal/UOA reports in different cars/climates/applications, price, or Uncle George's advice.
Originally Posted By: EngineeringGeek
I doubt I would notice any difference between them for as long as I'll have the car.
That, in a nutshell, is the biggest problem. Assuming that two or three different reputable oils of your choosing actually meet the specifications you need or are searching for, then how are you really going to differentiate between the two or three?
In an "average" engine requiring SM/GF-4 or better in 5w-30 or 5w-20, over normal, manufacturer mandated OCIs, is anyone going to really be able to tell the difference between PP, PU, and M1, for example, with respect to things like engine longevity?
If ExxonMobil or SOPUS or any of the other players could claim with a straight face that their product makes engines last longer than the products of their competitors, they'd be doing so. The fact that they don't makes me think that even marketing department types can't obfuscate or massage the data sufficiently, let alone come up with a sound, scientific conclusion.
I doubt I would notice any difference between them for as long as I'll have the car.
That, in a nutshell, is the biggest problem. Assuming that two or three different reputable oils of your choosing actually meet the specifications you need or are searching for, then how are you really going to differentiate between the two or three?
In an "average" engine requiring SM/GF-4 or better in 5w-30 or 5w-20, over normal, manufacturer mandated OCIs, is anyone going to really be able to tell the difference between PP, PU, and M1, for example, with respect to things like engine longevity?
If ExxonMobil or SOPUS or any of the other players could claim with a straight face that their product makes engines last longer than the products of their competitors, they'd be doing so. The fact that they don't makes me think that even marketing department types can't obfuscate or massage the data sufficiently, let alone come up with a sound, scientific conclusion.
Originally Posted By: 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 wasn't arguing and I have a name. It was really quite unclear why you brought up PAG. Thank you for clarifying.
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 wasn't arguing and I have a name. It was really quite unclear why you brought up PAG. Thank you for clarifying.
Originally Posted By: EngineeringGeek
Originally Posted By: doitmyself
No, I am saying that you cannot rank one oil best or better simply by comparing lab tests. You can compare and maybe eliminate a few, then only guess which of the remaining is better.
Perhaps I've not been clear, but that's pretty much what I've done so far. I started with five, eliminated a couple, and I'm down to two favorites. This is for my needs only. Someone else may have different requirements, priorities, etc.
Between my two favorites I really can't pick a winner. They each have a few minor pluses over the other. Like I said earlier, the Platinum for example has higher TBN but does worse for oxidization. I doubt I would notice any difference between them for as long as I'll have the car.
In fairness some of the lab tests are relatively black and white. Cold pumpability would be a good example. It's probably safe to say if brand X has half the viscosity in the exact same test it's going to work better and faster at cold temps and better protect the engine during every cold start.
The other extreme is harder to predict. HTHS at 150C is a reasonable guide but it's obviously not indicative of the performance in every type of bearing, rocker arm, cam lobe, oil flow, oil pressure, etc. But unless you say drive an old Buick with the 3800 Series II pushrod V6 used for the GF tests, nothing really will tell you exactly how an oil will perform in your enging. And, by the way, those test V6s are built with many custom/modified parts just for the testing and much tighter tolerances than the production versions. So even the bench engines don't represent anything in the real world.
And fleet testing, of course, is totally different than how most of us drive. And those too are often different vehicles. And one taxi might have a road-raged cabbie with his foot to the floor half the time and another might have Grandpa Joe who never uses more than quarter throttle. It's obvious which engine will have more wear regardless of the oil used.
The launch surface at different drag strips has an impact on performance. If my car does the quarter in 13 seconds flat on a given strip it may well be faster or slower at a different strip on a different day. But if I test my car and your car using the same track, lane, driver, timing lights, fuel, air temp, etc. now we have a decent basis to say argue who has the quicker car.
For those who just want to want to sit back and guess which car is faster based on what the owners and car manufactures claim, suit yourself. I'm trying to take a different approach.
To me the independent and hopefully unbiased lab results are a massive improvement over using marketing oriented manufacture supplied/sponsored information, anecdotal/UOA reports in different cars/climates/applications, price, or Uncle George's advice.
Five pages of discussion, and we still don't know what car and engine you want to put this oil in.
We also don't know where in the USA that you live.
Or what kind of driving you're doing.
Once the basics are covered, maybe BITOG can help.
Or are you just posting here to convince everybody that you're smarter than they are before you ignore all advice and do whatever you want?
Originally Posted By: doitmyself
No, I am saying that you cannot rank one oil best or better simply by comparing lab tests. You can compare and maybe eliminate a few, then only guess which of the remaining is better.
Perhaps I've not been clear, but that's pretty much what I've done so far. I started with five, eliminated a couple, and I'm down to two favorites. This is for my needs only. Someone else may have different requirements, priorities, etc.
Between my two favorites I really can't pick a winner. They each have a few minor pluses over the other. Like I said earlier, the Platinum for example has higher TBN but does worse for oxidization. I doubt I would notice any difference between them for as long as I'll have the car.
In fairness some of the lab tests are relatively black and white. Cold pumpability would be a good example. It's probably safe to say if brand X has half the viscosity in the exact same test it's going to work better and faster at cold temps and better protect the engine during every cold start.
The other extreme is harder to predict. HTHS at 150C is a reasonable guide but it's obviously not indicative of the performance in every type of bearing, rocker arm, cam lobe, oil flow, oil pressure, etc. But unless you say drive an old Buick with the 3800 Series II pushrod V6 used for the GF tests, nothing really will tell you exactly how an oil will perform in your enging. And, by the way, those test V6s are built with many custom/modified parts just for the testing and much tighter tolerances than the production versions. So even the bench engines don't represent anything in the real world.
And fleet testing, of course, is totally different than how most of us drive. And those too are often different vehicles. And one taxi might have a road-raged cabbie with his foot to the floor half the time and another might have Grandpa Joe who never uses more than quarter throttle. It's obvious which engine will have more wear regardless of the oil used.
The launch surface at different drag strips has an impact on performance. If my car does the quarter in 13 seconds flat on a given strip it may well be faster or slower at a different strip on a different day. But if I test my car and your car using the same track, lane, driver, timing lights, fuel, air temp, etc. now we have a decent basis to say argue who has the quicker car.
For those who just want to want to sit back and guess which car is faster based on what the owners and car manufactures claim, suit yourself. I'm trying to take a different approach.
To me the independent and hopefully unbiased lab results are a massive improvement over using marketing oriented manufacture supplied/sponsored information, anecdotal/UOA reports in different cars/climates/applications, price, or Uncle George's advice.
Five pages of discussion, and we still don't know what car and engine you want to put this oil in.
We also don't know where in the USA that you live.
Or what kind of driving you're doing.
Once the basics are covered, maybe BITOG can help.
Or are you just posting here to convince everybody that you're smarter than they are before you ignore all advice and do whatever you want?
Originally Posted By: Garak
That, in a nutshell, is the biggest problem. Assuming that two or three different reputable oils of your choosing actually meet the specifications you need or are searching for, then how are you really going to differentiate between the two or three?
That's one reason I can't justify spending more than $5/quart. For 98% of road applications I can't see how any extra benefit you might get from a more expensive oil is likely to make any difference for as long as you'll have the car when you're comparing the top spec oils (i.e. A5, Dexos1, etc.).
But some caution is advised as there are some bad oils out there. PQIA has tested at least a dozen different oils that could easily harm engines. They're all off brands and don't have licensed certifications. Some flat out lie on their labels as to what they are and might not even be suitable for your lawnmower.
Here's an oil the manufacture claims is made from "high grade base stocks" and offers the "finest protection". They mention it's suitable for "all foreign and domestic cars" and list SF, SG/CC, SH, SJ/CD on the label. But, in reality, it's only an SA/SC oil and the grade isn't even correct. See:
http://www.pqiamerica.com/November 2011 samples/MaxiGuard.htm
I also discovered all the big oil companies sell millions of gallons of line wash to some of the smaller lubricant companies. It's what comes out of their pipes and tanks when they switch from one product to another. It can have gear oil or ATF mixed with motor oil. It's supposed to be used for stuff like chain saw bar oil. But it's been discovered a lot of it is ending up being sold as motor oil by less than honest smaller companies.
So I'm suspicious of the unlicensed and uncertified oils and manufacture's claims. Obviously there are some companies more interested in maximizing their profit rather than producing a reputable product that will properly protect your engine. Plus uncertified oils (or the wrong certifications) invalidate car warranties. Some of these uncertified products are marketed as being more "green".
I've also noticed, as I'm sure others have, the big brands seem to compete on price when all else fails. They're obviously trying to lure people into switching oils. During one trip to the store Mobil 1 EP is $29 for a 5 qt jug and Valvoline Synpower is $22. The next time I'm there the M1 is $23/jug and the Synpower is higher. Sometimes the name brands of full synthetic are even priced under the store/off brands.
If I lived in a warm climate and mostly drove longer distances I'd probably just use a name brand conventional oil and I don't think it matters much which one as long as it meets the spec for the car (i.e. GF4, etc.). The PQIA and IOM tests back this up. Even the cheapest GF4/5 oils from Shell, Chevron, Castrol, Pennzoil, Mobil, Quaker State, etc. are all within 10% or 20% of each other in nearly every single test. See:
http://www.pqiamerica.com/testresultssep2011.html
and also:
http://www.pqiamerica.com/testresultssep2011page2.html
I live in a colder climate, often drive shorter distances, and am interested in extended oil change intervals. So for me personally it's worth spending $2 more per quart and getting a $25/jug name brand full synthetic that's certified to the Euro A5 standard for extended drain usage. It might be safer to run longer and it will flow much better for each cold start compared to a conventional GF5. And of the A5 synthetics, I like the test results of Valvoline Synpower and Pennzoil Platinum the best for my needs.
So I've learned a lot and perhaps my posts will prove useful to at least a few others here. Thanks for the helpful contributions.
That, in a nutshell, is the biggest problem. Assuming that two or three different reputable oils of your choosing actually meet the specifications you need or are searching for, then how are you really going to differentiate between the two or three?
That's one reason I can't justify spending more than $5/quart. For 98% of road applications I can't see how any extra benefit you might get from a more expensive oil is likely to make any difference for as long as you'll have the car when you're comparing the top spec oils (i.e. A5, Dexos1, etc.).
But some caution is advised as there are some bad oils out there. PQIA has tested at least a dozen different oils that could easily harm engines. They're all off brands and don't have licensed certifications. Some flat out lie on their labels as to what they are and might not even be suitable for your lawnmower.
Here's an oil the manufacture claims is made from "high grade base stocks" and offers the "finest protection". They mention it's suitable for "all foreign and domestic cars" and list SF, SG/CC, SH, SJ/CD on the label. But, in reality, it's only an SA/SC oil and the grade isn't even correct. See:
http://www.pqiamerica.com/November 2011 samples/MaxiGuard.htm
I also discovered all the big oil companies sell millions of gallons of line wash to some of the smaller lubricant companies. It's what comes out of their pipes and tanks when they switch from one product to another. It can have gear oil or ATF mixed with motor oil. It's supposed to be used for stuff like chain saw bar oil. But it's been discovered a lot of it is ending up being sold as motor oil by less than honest smaller companies.
So I'm suspicious of the unlicensed and uncertified oils and manufacture's claims. Obviously there are some companies more interested in maximizing their profit rather than producing a reputable product that will properly protect your engine. Plus uncertified oils (or the wrong certifications) invalidate car warranties. Some of these uncertified products are marketed as being more "green".
I've also noticed, as I'm sure others have, the big brands seem to compete on price when all else fails. They're obviously trying to lure people into switching oils. During one trip to the store Mobil 1 EP is $29 for a 5 qt jug and Valvoline Synpower is $22. The next time I'm there the M1 is $23/jug and the Synpower is higher. Sometimes the name brands of full synthetic are even priced under the store/off brands.
If I lived in a warm climate and mostly drove longer distances I'd probably just use a name brand conventional oil and I don't think it matters much which one as long as it meets the spec for the car (i.e. GF4, etc.). The PQIA and IOM tests back this up. Even the cheapest GF4/5 oils from Shell, Chevron, Castrol, Pennzoil, Mobil, Quaker State, etc. are all within 10% or 20% of each other in nearly every single test. See:
http://www.pqiamerica.com/testresultssep2011.html
and also:
http://www.pqiamerica.com/testresultssep2011page2.html
I live in a colder climate, often drive shorter distances, and am interested in extended oil change intervals. So for me personally it's worth spending $2 more per quart and getting a $25/jug name brand full synthetic that's certified to the Euro A5 standard for extended drain usage. It might be safer to run longer and it will flow much better for each cold start compared to a conventional GF5. And of the A5 synthetics, I like the test results of Valvoline Synpower and Pennzoil Platinum the best for my needs.
So I've learned a lot and perhaps my posts will prove useful to at least a few others here. Thanks for the helpful contributions.
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Or are you just posting here to convince everybody that you're smarter than they are before you ignore all advice and do whatever you want?
What I asked for at the start of this thread not a single person here provided. I had to find the information on my own elsewhere. I asked for objective sources of independent test data on current oils. I found them at IOM and PQIA. I've only been trying to share what I've learned and comment on other posts directed at me.
I wasn't looking for personal recommendations as to which oil I should buy--there's plenty of that here on BITOG already. I was only looking for sources of reasonably current and trustworthy test data. It seems many here are not interested in such data or at least like to discredit it which I find interesting.
Or are you just posting here to convince everybody that you're smarter than they are before you ignore all advice and do whatever you want?
What I asked for at the start of this thread not a single person here provided. I had to find the information on my own elsewhere. I asked for objective sources of independent test data on current oils. I found them at IOM and PQIA. I've only been trying to share what I've learned and comment on other posts directed at me.
I wasn't looking for personal recommendations as to which oil I should buy--there's plenty of that here on BITOG already. I was only looking for sources of reasonably current and trustworthy test data. It seems many here are not interested in such data or at least like to discredit it which I find interesting.
I think one of the issues into which you're running is that folks haven't really understood the parameters which are important to you, and why. You've defined that a little more now; you're looking for a robust oil suitable for long drains in a challenging environment.
The fact is, all oils which meet your engine's certifications (and actually meet them, so not "True Life Advantage" at the local Quickie Mart) will provide adequate protection for the service life of the vehicle when used in accordance with the factory guidelines. So, even if the IOM data show that one oil has "8X better wear protection" on one specific test, it's incredibly unlikely that's going to matter over the service life of the unit; i.e. it may be true, but it's more useful for marketing purposes than for determining "what's best".
Keep in mind also that the overwhelming majority of bench tests use oils which are at temperature, since the tests are accelerated. They don't necessarily give the most relevant results for your situation. Truth is, pouring over the UOA data on this site will probably give you a good idea as to what oils can best withstand long OCI's. And you'll also discover that no oils really do all that well when extended OCI's are done with lots of short trips in a cold climate.
To answer your question of "well, how should I intelligently pick an oil", I think it probably makes the most sense to clearly define the parameters that are important to you. If you're doing a ton of short trips in cold weather, I'd start by looking at oils which have the highest VI, and if you're talking really cold, the best pumpability--so MRV and 40C viscosity can tell you a lot.
The fact is, all oils which meet your engine's certifications (and actually meet them, so not "True Life Advantage" at the local Quickie Mart) will provide adequate protection for the service life of the vehicle when used in accordance with the factory guidelines. So, even if the IOM data show that one oil has "8X better wear protection" on one specific test, it's incredibly unlikely that's going to matter over the service life of the unit; i.e. it may be true, but it's more useful for marketing purposes than for determining "what's best".
Keep in mind also that the overwhelming majority of bench tests use oils which are at temperature, since the tests are accelerated. They don't necessarily give the most relevant results for your situation. Truth is, pouring over the UOA data on this site will probably give you a good idea as to what oils can best withstand long OCI's. And you'll also discover that no oils really do all that well when extended OCI's are done with lots of short trips in a cold climate.
To answer your question of "well, how should I intelligently pick an oil", I think it probably makes the most sense to clearly define the parameters that are important to you. If you're doing a ton of short trips in cold weather, I'd start by looking at oils which have the highest VI, and if you're talking really cold, the best pumpability--so MRV and 40C viscosity can tell you a lot.
Thanks JOD. That's perhaps the most helpful reply yet and I'm in agreement with most everything you said above. I plan to use my own UOAs to figure out how long I can go regardless of what oil I end up with. But, with cars under powertrain warranty, I won't exceed 3750 miles/6 months (or whatever the severe mfg schedule is) to eliminate any potential warranty issues. With my out of warranty vehicle, it will depend on the UOA results, usage, etc.
I'm not sure if there's any truth to switching oil brands frequently being harmful. It's not something I've found any decent test data on--only lots of speculation and vague references to additive compatibility, etc. If I was sure there was no issue, I would probably just buy whatever jug of properly certified full synthetic was cheapest at the time.
Not being sure if it's wise to play brand-of-the-month, my goal was to settle on a single oil that may have some advantages in my application. For me, that's the ones that flow better at cold temps (where there are some significant differences) and will hopefully better survive longer OCIs (i.e. A5 certified and high TBN). And just to make life simple, and have fewer partial jugs around, I want to use the same oil in all my vehicles as they all are (currently) spec'd for 5W30 GF4 or better at any temp.
I'm not sure if there's any truth to switching oil brands frequently being harmful. It's not something I've found any decent test data on--only lots of speculation and vague references to additive compatibility, etc. If I was sure there was no issue, I would probably just buy whatever jug of properly certified full synthetic was cheapest at the time.
Not being sure if it's wise to play brand-of-the-month, my goal was to settle on a single oil that may have some advantages in my application. For me, that's the ones that flow better at cold temps (where there are some significant differences) and will hopefully better survive longer OCIs (i.e. A5 certified and high TBN). And just to make life simple, and have fewer partial jugs around, I want to use the same oil in all my vehicles as they all are (currently) spec'd for 5W30 GF4 or better at any temp.
Originally Posted By: EngineeringGeek
(i.e. A5 certified and high TBN).
Right there is an example of what I was taught. You could have 2 reasonably close oils in specification. One might have a TBN of 10 and the other 8.5 . While you might assume that the TBN of 10 is better, at the end of any given OCI, it could turn out that the 8.5 oil retained a higher TBN and is the better oil for your needs. The only way you could know this is if you do a number of UOA's with both oils. Are you going to do this?
FYI, I commend your diligence and efforts. I do this kind of investigation numerous times at my workplace. In some (many) instances, I end up where I started. But, at least I am better educated about the subject matter.
Kudos for keeping your cool and replying intelligently to some of our lame rebuttals.
(i.e. A5 certified and high TBN).
Right there is an example of what I was taught. You could have 2 reasonably close oils in specification. One might have a TBN of 10 and the other 8.5 . While you might assume that the TBN of 10 is better, at the end of any given OCI, it could turn out that the 8.5 oil retained a higher TBN and is the better oil for your needs. The only way you could know this is if you do a number of UOA's with both oils. Are you going to do this?
FYI, I commend your diligence and efforts. I do this kind of investigation numerous times at my workplace. In some (many) instances, I end up where I started. But, at least I am better educated about the subject matter.
Kudos for keeping your cool and replying intelligently to some of our lame rebuttals.
And, I can't resist.......Pablo, are you like a singin' bird and a croakin' toad?
Originally Posted By: Pablo
I wasn't arguing and I have a name.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
I wasn't arguing and I have a name.
OK back to the thread (I was internetless for nearly 2 hours because of the storm, I thought I was gonna die
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked