Delo 400 LE 5w30 Synthetic

Status
Not open for further replies.
No - I was not inferring that all CJ-4 lubes are automatically SN approved by default.
I was noting that this product is both CJ-4 and SN approved (as are many other HDEOs). The existence of those two separate approvals does not imply automatic cross-functional rating cohesion.

The point I was making is that ALL lubes are a summarization of base stocks and add-packs. What make for a good, well-rounded lube will likely satisfy more than one application. The comment of "is this just a PCMO with a splash of more detergents" is silly. That concept could be said of any mass-market lube. They are ALL just some oil with something added. Conversely, should I presume from the former quote that ALL HDEOs are only PCMOs with more detergent? And for that matter, what detergent? There is more than one element that is used for its ability to cleanse surfaces.

On top of that, both Phil and Jim (at the recent BITOG get together) indicated that as lubes become more mature in their design and manufacture, there are going to be proprietary additives that won't show up on a UOA. So what then? How are VOAs going to help the (what I like to call) oil-biggots as that happens more and more often in the market place? If you cannot see all additives, then how would one distinguish the purported "better" lube from another in a VOA? As the market moves forward, VOAs are going to become less and less able to delineate lubes.

UOAs, OTOH, are what matters. Actually performance is much more telling of a lube's abilities than is a VOA. I'd rather know the final score of a ball game than the starting roster. Knowing the roster might help you place a bet, but knowing the score is what pays.

So, to that end, does it really matter if this oil is indeed "just" a PCMO with more Ca or other detergent? What matters is that it is both CJ-4 and SN approved; that is the starting point. The story ends when someone runs this stuff in a few gas and diesel engines, runs the UOAs and then we see what's it's really capable of. Until then, this is all just banter.

Hope that helps.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
No - I was not inferring that all CJ-4 lubes are automatically SN approved by default.
I was noting that this product is both CJ-4 and SN approved (as are many other HDEOs). The existence of those two separate approvals does not imply automatic cross-functional rating cohesion.

The point I was making is that ALL lubes are a summarization of base stocks and add-packs. What make for a good, well-rounded lube will likely satisfy more than one application. The comment of "is this just a PCMO with a splash of more detergents" is silly. That concept could be said of any mass-market lube. They are ALL just some oil with something added. Conversely, should I presume from the former quote that ALL HDEOs are only PCMOs with more detergent? And for that matter, what detergent? There is more than one element that is used for its ability to cleanse surfaces.

On top of that, both Phil and Jim (at the recent BITOG get together) indicated that as lubes become more mature in their design and manufacture, there are going to be proprietary additives that won't show up on a UOA. So what then? How are VOAs going to help the (what I like to call) oil-biggots as that happens more and more often in the market place? If you cannot see all additives, then how would one distinguish the purported "better" lube from another in a VOA? As the market moves forward, VOAs are going to become less and less able to delineate lubes.

UOAs, OTOH, are what matters. Actually performance is much more telling of a lube's abilities than is a VOA. I'd rather know the final score of a ball game than the starting roster. Knowing the roster might help you place a bet, but knowing the score is what pays.

So, to that end, does it really matter if this oil is indeed "just" a PCMO with more Ca or other detergent? What matters is that it is both CJ-4 and SN approved; that is the starting point. The story ends when someone runs this stuff in a few gas and diesel engines, runs the UOAs and then we see what's it's really capable of. Until then, this is all just banter.

Hope that helps.



It's perfectly reasonable to pose the question I posed based on the information from Chevron, not a VOA. It has PCMO levels Zinc & Phos. I hope it has some secret sauce

With regard to UOA being the determining factor of an oil's ultimate performance level, well, duh(if you can use skosy, whatever the [censored] that means, I can use duh
smile.gif
). I hope we are privy to some uoas in the future on some class 8 and other heavy commercial and industrial applications. I have no doubt it will be fine in gas light duty commercial applications, but it will be of interest to me how a light lube with a light dose of conventional/non-proprietary anti-wear adds works in those applications throughout the US, not just in very cold temps.

My 03 C7500 with 7.8l Duramax LG4 (Isuzu 6H) specifically states not to use 5w30. It will be of interest to see other engine manufacturers embrace the light vicosity as well. I know Cat prefers 0w-40 over xw30's for very cold temps with a temp limit of 104f for 0w40 and 86f for 0w & 5w30's. http://parts.cat.com/cda/files/3244668/7/SEBU6250-17.pdf Paccar only recommends 5w30 below 5f and 15w40 above 5f. http://www.peterbilt.com/uploaded/manual/PACCAR MX Operators Manual-English.pdf

As an aside Dnewton, I sincerely hope you are not intending to be insulting or condescending. But your tone in many posts, not just this thread, certainly leads one to believe this. As a moderator and one of the more knowledgeable/informed posters you of all people should refrain the curmudgeonly level of snarkiness that seems to be popular with some members and another mod around here. It's tiring and simply drives people away from the forum, especially when coming from a mod.
 
Last edited:
The question, regardless of the basis for information, was essentially this (paraphrased):
Q: "Is this product just oil with more additive?"
A: Ummmm .... yes.

It's SN approved by the API.
It's CJ-4 approved by the API.
It's approved for many OEM diesel applications such as Mack, Cummins, and others.

I used the word "skosh" because you used the phrase "a splash of detergent". Your broad-based undefined description ("splash") encouraged me to be just as liberal in my answer ("skosh"). You are more than welcome to use the word "duh".


As for my snarkiness, it's probably a reaction to the ever-escalating amount of rudementary (and nearly silly) questions on this site. As you mentioned, I'm not the only one with a sour attitude; by default, that means I'm probably not the only one that tires of these type of innane comments and questions.

My initial answer to your comment/question was just. All commonly available retail lubes are blends of both base-stocks and add-packs. How did my simple answer not address your rather simple question? If you wanted a very specific answer, you should perhaps make a much more thorough attempt to better define your comment or question. If you would have asked:
"Hey guys, this looks like Havoline 5w-30 with perhaps 10% more Calcium to me; does it seem that way to you?"
I would then had a much more confined answer, and would have more respect for the question because it was detailed and direct and specific. But your question was not such; it was simplistic and open-ended. So the answer you got from me was as simplistic; this oil being disucssed is just lube stock with a specific add-pack blended to satisfy the targeted market.

Further, my postion as a moderator is a position of authority that is only placed into action when people violate rules or administrative actions need to take place in order to facilitate the running of this site. Neither I, nor you, nor anyone else involved in this thread has violated the rules. Therefore my position as a moderator has ZERO to do with my participation in this thread; I participate as a member. If you are upset with my participation as a member, that is fine; you have every right to comment on my attitude in that regard. And you are not the first person to do so. But you have no basis whatsoever to be upset at my position of moderation; I have taken no such actions. I take pride in the fact that all our moderators and staff operate on a very professional manner, when it comes to the administration of this site. But all moderators are ALSO just people; we all have different personalities. If you don't like my personality, that is your opinion and you are fully entitled to it. But you have NO fair basis to judge me as a moderator unless I have taken direct action against you or a thread where you have violated rules.


ALL that aside, I don't mean to irritate people to a point that they leave the site. OTOH - do they intend to irritate me to a point where I'm snarky?
 
Last edited:
3311- The light oils are happening. They may not back-spec to engines like your LG4 (or they may) but my guess is that we are going to see a swing in the light direction with diesels as we have with gas engines. And likely the same amount of foot dragging, doom and gloom predictions and howling as we have with gassers. Just as with the gas engines, the applications are going to be situationally dependent. Most of the arguments ensue because people take an "either-or" attitude towards it. That's a mistake, I think.

Back spec'ing is of the most interest to me because you are kinda on your own in a lot of cases. It's not likely an engine manufacturer is going to take the time to do the testing needed to determine the oil needs for legacy engines. The old specs from the actual period when a particular engine were built aren't always a help because, in some cases, certain grades of oil didn't exist. In other cases, the recommendations reflect weaknesses in the oil technology of the time that have today been addressed. Certainly a mainstream blender-sourced 5W30 HDEO was pretty new when your 7.8L was built... even if it existed at all (I haven't researched that, though I know Amsoil's HDD was around).

I know enough about oil and my own equipment to say that a 5W30 HDEO will work. It might not for other folks in their own situations.
 
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
The question, regardless of the basis for information, was essentially this (paraphrased):
Q: "Is this product just oil with more additive?"
A: Ummmm .... yes.

It's SN approved by the API.
It's CJ-4 approved by the API.
It's approved for many OEM diesel applications such as Mack, Cummins, and others.

I used the word "skosh" because you used the phrase "a splash of detergent". Your broad-based undefined description ("splash") encouraged me to be just as liberal in my answer ("skosh"). You are more than welcome to use the word "duh".


As for my snarkiness, it's probably a reaction to the ever-escalating amount of rudementary (and nearly silly) questions on this site. As you mentioned, I'm not the only one with a sour attitude; by default, that means I'm probably not the only one that tires of these type of innane comments and questions.

My initial answer to your comment/question was just. All commonly available retail lubes are blends of both base-stocks and add-packs. How did my simple answer not address your rather simple question? If you wanted a very specific answer, you should perhaps make a much more thorough attempt to better define your comment or question. If you would have asked:
"Hey guys, this looks like Havoline 5w-30 with perhaps 10% more Calcium to me; does it seem that way to you?"
I would then had a much more confined answer, and would have more respect for the question because it was detailed and direct and specific. But your question was not such; it was simplistic and open-ended. So the answer you got from me was as simplistic; this oil being disucssed is just lube stock with a specific add-pack blended to satisfy the targeted market.

Further, my postion as a moderator is a position of authority that is only placed into action when people violate rules or administrative actions need to take place in order to facilitate the running of this site. Neither I, nor you, nor anyone else involved in this thread has violated the rules. Therefore my position as a moderator has ZERO to do with my participation in this thread; I participate as a member. If you are upset with my participation as a member, that is fine; you have every right to comment on my attitude in that regard. And you are not the first person to do so. But you have no basis whatsoever to be upset at my position of moderation; I have taken no such actions. I take pride in the fact that all our moderators and staff operate on a very professional manner, when it comes to the administration of this site. But all moderators are ALSO just people; we all have different personalities. If you don't like my personality, that is your opinion and you are fully entitled to it. But you have NO fair basis to judge me as a moderator unless I have taken direct action against you or a thread where you have violated rules.


ALL that aside, I don't mean to irritate people to a point that they leave the site. OTOH - do they intend to irritate me to a point where I'm snarky?

I stand by my initial question this HDEO with PCMO levels of additives.

I'm sorry, you completely missed my point. I did not call into question your moderation. But I believe in your capacity as a moderator and BITOG representative you should strive to raise the level of discourse, not immediately drag it into mud. If the "resident annoyed curmudgeon" is the your goal then congratulations! You have achieved it. But it is sad, tired and played. Why not be better than that. If your so annoyed - your words - at the discussion then perhaps you should remember the old adage "silence is golden".
 
Jim,
It will interesting to see if they(Isuzu or GM) back spec my engine. The Isuzu 6h engine is still in production in many applications it will be interesting to see if Isuzu specs a thinner fluid moving forward as well.

I'm not "a thinner is always better" advocate, but I welcome the thinner fluids in the HDEO market. Based on the amount fleet testing that takes place I think we will see more(eventually)conclusive evidence as to wether thinner is better or simply adequate, at least in the HDEO world.
 
Last edited:
(leaving my discourse behind, I will table the 'tude for now ...)

I don't know that "thinner is always better" is a claim here, is it?

First we'd have to define what "better" means.

In this case, and many lube oil situations, we are seeing that "thinner is just fine". Moreso, we're learning that "thicker isn't better". IOW - the wear protection by lighter grades is just as effective as heavier. I am confining my comments to approved viscosities. 10w-30 v 15w-40 seems to be a moot point when it comes to wear protection in modern diesels.

So ....

"Better" isn't predicated upon wear. "Better" must the be about OTHER attibutes. Hence - fuel economy.

This concept is already proven in PCMOs. Now, the trend is heading towards HDEOs.

I've successfully run 10w-30 HDEO dino for several applications and had great wear protection, despite all the pundits warning otherwise.

Point being this: if the wear protection is assured with either grade, then "better" can be defined by other criteria. Thinner grades will give more fuel economy. Most won't be able to see it; typically fractional in our world. But in the CAFE race at the corporate level, it's meaningful.

How's that for non-snarky?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
(leaving my discourse behind, I will table the 'tude for now ...)

I don't know that "thinner is always better" is a claim here, is it?

First we'd have to define what "better" means.

In this case, and many lube oil situations, we are seeing that "thinner is just fine". Moreso, we're learning that "thicker isn't better". IOW - the wear protection by lighter grades is just as effective as heavier. I am confining my comments to approved viscosities. 10w-30 v 15w-40 seems to be a moot point when it comes to wear protection in modern diesels.

So ....

"Better" isn't predicated upon wear. "Better" must the be about OTHER attibutes. Hence - fuel economy.

This concept is already proven in PCMOs. Now, the trend is heading towards HDEOs.

I've successfully run 10w-30 HDEO dino for several applications and had great wear protection, despite all the pundits warning otherwise.

Point being this: if the wear protection is assured with either grade, then "better" can be defined by other criteria. Thinner grades will give more fuel economy. Most won't be able to see it; typically fractional in our world. But in the CAFE race at the corporate level, it's meaningful.

How's that for non-snarky?


It's not intention to start restart the thicker vs thinner debate. I think you and many others have proven a 10w30 is and outstanding lube in many applications. In fact, unless I'm wrong, I don't think has been an example of a 10w30 hdeo not performing well? I just think it will be productive to see data moving forward on the commercial/industrial fleet engines as even thinner oils with less conventional/non-proprietary additives gain greater fleet popularity.

With regard to your non-snarkiness, I appreciate the effort.
smile.gif
 
True are your comments.

Cat and some others are even using 10w-30 as the factory fill in many of their stationary engines now. Thinner grades are here to stay.

Not that 15-w-40 isn't still viable. In southern areas, where cold temps are not an issue, I see the WIDE range of choices as very acceptable and perfectly suitable.

But colder climates and those who favor fuel economy, with no loss of wear protection, will find the thinner grades perhaps a "better" choice?
 
I checked Chevron's website this AM and this product no longer appears under the Delo listing? Or, maybe I am not finding it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

F
7.3 powerstroke conventional oil to synthetic?
Replies
13
Views
1K
fantastic
R
What is the better synthetic diesel oil?
2
Replies
24
Views
9K
OLEJOE
K
10w30 5w40 diesel oil question?
2
Replies
20
Views
7K
Bighorn2500
C
Delo 400 MGX vs Gold Ultra
Replies
7
Views
2K
BusyLittleShop
J
Oil recommendation - Winter/Summer L5P
2
Replies
25
Views
7K
CleanSump
Back
Top