Emailed RP regarding basestocks on SN oils.
- Thread starter donnyj08
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: donnyj08
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
They probably have good reasons for why they didn't, so who do we believe?
If their formulas are selling sufficiently well and perform within specifications with a slightly lower VI, I suppose there's not a lot of reason for the smaller companies to switch.
OTOH if the higher VI is the best wouldn't the smaller so called cutting edge companies want the very best. Amsoil and Red line come to mind here..........
very interesting thoughts here, what is true??
You tell me? I really have no idea. If Amsoil and Red Line are so cutting edge why haven't they jumped on board?
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
They probably have good reasons for why they didn't, so who do we believe?
If their formulas are selling sufficiently well and perform within specifications with a slightly lower VI, I suppose there's not a lot of reason for the smaller companies to switch.
OTOH if the higher VI is the best wouldn't the smaller so called cutting edge companies want the very best. Amsoil and Red line come to mind here..........
very interesting thoughts here, what is true??
You tell me? I really have no idea. If Amsoil and Red Line are so cutting edge why haven't they jumped on board?
Originally Posted By: Garak
I'm not sure, demparpaint. After all, RP does try to cater to some old school North American applications. Perhaps they're catering to the fear of shear.
I'm not sure either.
Fear of shear, now that's a good phrase.
I'm not sure, demparpaint. After all, RP does try to cater to some old school North American applications. Perhaps they're catering to the fear of shear.
I'm not sure either.
Fear of shear, now that's a good phrase.
what is the high 220 VI Edge , it isn't Castrol is it ? I looked and their Product data Sheets and I didn' see any that high.
Originally Posted By: DanMiller
what is the high 220 VI Edge , it isn't Castrol is it ? I looked and their Product data Sheets and I didn' see any that high.
It was their SM version, the new SN is totally different.
what is the high 220 VI Edge , it isn't Castrol is it ? I looked and their Product data Sheets and I didn' see any that high.
It was their SM version, the new SN is totally different.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: DanMiller
what is the high 220 VI Edge , it isn't Castrol is it ? I looked and their Product data Sheets and I didn' see any that high.
It was their SM version, the new SN is totally different.
Yes, LONG GONE, according to CATERHAM. Not that it was around and available for too long anyway.
Originally Posted By: DanMiller
what is the high 220 VI Edge , it isn't Castrol is it ? I looked and their Product data Sheets and I didn' see any that high.
It was their SM version, the new SN is totally different.
Yes, LONG GONE, according to CATERHAM. Not that it was around and available for too long anyway.
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: DanMiller
what is the high 220 VI Edge , it isn't Castrol is it ? I looked and their Product data Sheets and I didn' see any that high.
It was their SM version, the new SN is totally different.
Yes, LONG GONE, according to CATERHAM. Not that it was around and available for too long anyway.
It was good while it lasted, I have enough for one more oil change.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: DanMiller
what is the high 220 VI Edge , it isn't Castrol is it ? I looked and their Product data Sheets and I didn' see any that high.
It was their SM version, the new SN is totally different.
Yes, LONG GONE, according to CATERHAM. Not that it was around and available for too long anyway.
It was good while it lasted, I have enough for one more oil change.
Quote:
OTOH if the higher VI is the best wouldn't the smaller so called cutting edge companies want the very best.
You would think so, it makes sense they would especially in their premium products.
Course it could be that all this higher VI talk is just a bunch of mumbo jumbo and meaningless tripe like thinner is better.
OTOH if the higher VI is the best wouldn't the smaller so called cutting edge companies want the very best.
You would think so, it makes sense they would especially in their premium products.
Course it could be that all this higher VI talk is just a bunch of mumbo jumbo and meaningless tripe like thinner is better.
Originally Posted By: Trav
Quote:
OTOH if the higher VI is the best wouldn't the smaller so called cutting edge companies want the very best.
You would think so, it makes sense they would especially in their premium products.
Course it could be that all this higher VI talk is just a bunch of mumbo jumbo and meaningless tripe like thinner is better.
Perhaps they have found that the "real world" performance benefits are not worth the extra cost of large Viscosity index increases. If a VI of 150-170 will allow pumpability on a cold start, and allow the engine to last 250k+ miles then why strive for, and spend more $ on VI increasing? the money is probably better spent in other areas like quality control, an area that AMSOIL, for example, Excels in.
In no way am i against high VI, i see the benefit as well. the question is, how beneficial, and what is the true long term benefit over an engines life? is it 20k more miles? 50k more miles? this is the question. if their oils will allow engines to outlast their bodies and keep the engines running like new for that long, what incentive do they have to increase the VI of their oils? I think this is why we have yet to see super high VI in most brands.
Quote:
OTOH if the higher VI is the best wouldn't the smaller so called cutting edge companies want the very best.
You would think so, it makes sense they would especially in their premium products.
Course it could be that all this higher VI talk is just a bunch of mumbo jumbo and meaningless tripe like thinner is better.
Perhaps they have found that the "real world" performance benefits are not worth the extra cost of large Viscosity index increases. If a VI of 150-170 will allow pumpability on a cold start, and allow the engine to last 250k+ miles then why strive for, and spend more $ on VI increasing? the money is probably better spent in other areas like quality control, an area that AMSOIL, for example, Excels in.
In no way am i against high VI, i see the benefit as well. the question is, how beneficial, and what is the true long term benefit over an engines life? is it 20k more miles? 50k more miles? this is the question. if their oils will allow engines to outlast their bodies and keep the engines running like new for that long, what incentive do they have to increase the VI of their oils? I think this is why we have yet to see super high VI in most brands.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: donnyj08
Originally Posted By: Trav
Quote:
OTOH if the higher VI is the best wouldn't the smaller so called cutting edge companies want the very best.
You would think so, it makes sense they would especially in their premium products.
Course it could be that all this higher VI talk is just a bunch of mumbo jumbo and meaningless tripe like thinner is better.
Perhaps they have found that the "real world" performance benefits are not worth the extra cost of large Viscosity index increases. If a VI of 150-170 will allow pumpability on a cold start, and allow the engine to last 250k+ miles then why strive for, and spend more $ on VI increasing? the money is probably better spent in other areas like quality control, an area that AMSOIL, for example, Excels in.
In no way am i against high VI, i see the benefit as well. the question is, how beneficial, and what is the true long term benefit over an engines life? is it 20k more miles? 50k more miles? this is the question. if their oils will allow engines to outlast their bodies and keep the engines running like new for that long, what incentive do they have to increase the VI of their oils? I think this is why we have yet to see super high VI in most brands.
The problem with advanced, shear stable, high VI oils is that they are much more expensive to make.
The Sustina oils list for 12 to 14 bucks per quart in the States.
Your best value is on OEM oils where the price must be reasonable, hence we have the Mobil made Toyota 0W-20 (216 VI), Idemitsu made 0W-20's for Mazda, Mitsubishi and Cdn Honda/Acura (225 -197 VI).
Even Mobil 0W-40, the original OEM high VI oil (VI 185 -187) is hard to beat for the price.
Can you get by without using a high VI synthetic oil? Of course.
Will an engine last a very long time running on mineral oil instead of a synthetic? Of course.
The point is, the more advanced oils offer advantages in terms of fuel economy, engine cleanliness and my favorite benefits which are maximized power and driveability when cold.
If you don't think they are worth the higher cost or their benefits don't really apply all that much to your application then use something cheaper.
But if you're reading this, you at least have some technical interest in motor oil so I suggest trying one of the new ultra high VI oils to see what you think of them for yourself.
For example, I don't know of a single BITOG member who's switched to the Toyota 0W-20 from something else who couldn't notice the difference in terms of engine responsiveness and increased fuel economy.
Originally Posted By: Trav
Quote:
OTOH if the higher VI is the best wouldn't the smaller so called cutting edge companies want the very best.
You would think so, it makes sense they would especially in their premium products.
Course it could be that all this higher VI talk is just a bunch of mumbo jumbo and meaningless tripe like thinner is better.
Perhaps they have found that the "real world" performance benefits are not worth the extra cost of large Viscosity index increases. If a VI of 150-170 will allow pumpability on a cold start, and allow the engine to last 250k+ miles then why strive for, and spend more $ on VI increasing? the money is probably better spent in other areas like quality control, an area that AMSOIL, for example, Excels in.
In no way am i against high VI, i see the benefit as well. the question is, how beneficial, and what is the true long term benefit over an engines life? is it 20k more miles? 50k more miles? this is the question. if their oils will allow engines to outlast their bodies and keep the engines running like new for that long, what incentive do they have to increase the VI of their oils? I think this is why we have yet to see super high VI in most brands.
The problem with advanced, shear stable, high VI oils is that they are much more expensive to make.
The Sustina oils list for 12 to 14 bucks per quart in the States.
Your best value is on OEM oils where the price must be reasonable, hence we have the Mobil made Toyota 0W-20 (216 VI), Idemitsu made 0W-20's for Mazda, Mitsubishi and Cdn Honda/Acura (225 -197 VI).
Even Mobil 0W-40, the original OEM high VI oil (VI 185 -187) is hard to beat for the price.
Can you get by without using a high VI synthetic oil? Of course.
Will an engine last a very long time running on mineral oil instead of a synthetic? Of course.
The point is, the more advanced oils offer advantages in terms of fuel economy, engine cleanliness and my favorite benefits which are maximized power and driveability when cold.
If you don't think they are worth the higher cost or their benefits don't really apply all that much to your application then use something cheaper.
But if you're reading this, you at least have some technical interest in motor oil so I suggest trying one of the new ultra high VI oils to see what you think of them for yourself.
For example, I don't know of a single BITOG member who's switched to the Toyota 0W-20 from something else who couldn't notice the difference in terms of engine responsiveness and increased fuel economy.
Originally Posted By: donnyj08
Originally Posted By: Trav
Quote:
OTOH if the higher VI is the best wouldn't the smaller so called cutting edge companies want the very best.
You would think so, it makes sense they would especially in their premium products.
Course it could be that all this higher VI talk is just a bunch of mumbo jumbo and meaningless tripe like thinner is better.
Perhaps they have found that the "real world" performance benefits are not worth the extra cost of large Viscosity index increases. If a VI of 150-170 will allow pumpability on a cold start, and allow the engine to last 250k+ miles then why strive for, and spend more $ on VI increasing? the money is probably better spent in other areas like quality control, an area that AMSOIL, for example, Excels in.
In no way am i against high VI, i see the benefit as well. the question is, how beneficial, and what is the true long term benefit over an engines life? is it 20k more miles? 50k more miles? this is the question. if their oils will allow engines to outlast their bodies and keep the engines running like new for that long, what incentive do they have to increase the VI of their oils? I think this is why we have yet to see super high VI in most brands.
So then Amsoil isn't interested in engine longevity, only extended drain intervals? A cheaper oil than Amsoil with more VI is going to give 20K, or 50K more life? I'm no fan of Amsoil but it does do well in UOA reports, that's if they mean anything in the real world.
Originally Posted By: Trav
Quote:
OTOH if the higher VI is the best wouldn't the smaller so called cutting edge companies want the very best.
You would think so, it makes sense they would especially in their premium products.
Course it could be that all this higher VI talk is just a bunch of mumbo jumbo and meaningless tripe like thinner is better.
Perhaps they have found that the "real world" performance benefits are not worth the extra cost of large Viscosity index increases. If a VI of 150-170 will allow pumpability on a cold start, and allow the engine to last 250k+ miles then why strive for, and spend more $ on VI increasing? the money is probably better spent in other areas like quality control, an area that AMSOIL, for example, Excels in.
In no way am i against high VI, i see the benefit as well. the question is, how beneficial, and what is the true long term benefit over an engines life? is it 20k more miles? 50k more miles? this is the question. if their oils will allow engines to outlast their bodies and keep the engines running like new for that long, what incentive do they have to increase the VI of their oils? I think this is why we have yet to see super high VI in most brands.
So then Amsoil isn't interested in engine longevity, only extended drain intervals? A cheaper oil than Amsoil with more VI is going to give 20K, or 50K more life? I'm no fan of Amsoil but it does do well in UOA reports, that's if they mean anything in the real world.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: donnyj08
Originally Posted By: Trav
Quote:
OTOH if the higher VI is the best wouldn't the smaller so called cutting edge companies want the very best.
You would think so, it makes sense they would especially in their premium products.
Course it could be that all this higher VI talk is just a bunch of mumbo jumbo and meaningless tripe like thinner is better.
Perhaps they have found that the "real world" performance benefits are not worth the extra cost of large Viscosity index increases. If a VI of 150-170 will allow pumpability on a cold start, and allow the engine to last 250k+ miles then why strive for, and spend more $ on VI increasing? the money is probably better spent in other areas like quality control, an area that AMSOIL, for example, Excels in.
In no way am i against high VI, i see the benefit as well. the question is, how beneficial, and what is the true long term benefit over an engines life? is it 20k more miles? 50k more miles? this is the question. if their oils will allow engines to outlast their bodies and keep the engines running like new for that long, what incentive do they have to increase the VI of their oils? I think this is why we have yet to see super high VI in most brands.
So then Amsoil isn't interested in engine longevity, only extended drain intervals? A cheaper oil than Amsoil with more VI is going to give 20K, or 50K more life? I'm no fan of Amsoil but it does do well in UOA reports, that's if they mean anything in the real world.
demarpaint,
No where in my post did i say they weren't interested in engine longevity. did you read my post thoroughly? i stated that perhaps the cost to performance ratio is not beneficial for Amsoil, and many others for that matter. As you stated, their oils protect well according to used oil analysis so why change? the job is getting done very well right now. And i never said a cheaper oil would perform better. i was asking what is the true benefit in engine protection over the period of time when using a oil with a VI 0f 220 vs and oil with a VI of 150, and gave mileage as and example/question.
Also add to the price of a quart of SS and your well above 10$, the more expensive they have to make the product the harder it is to move the product.
Also CATERHAM, i am open and willing to try one of these oils when my vehicle is out of warranty. As for now i have to stick with a 5w20 grade, so i cannot move to a high VI 0w20 just yet. I've never opposed the high VI oils, just putting in my input as to why certain companies are sticking to average VI. Mostly cost is my Assumption, and providing great protection at a reasonable price.
Originally Posted By: donnyj08
Originally Posted By: Trav
Quote:
OTOH if the higher VI is the best wouldn't the smaller so called cutting edge companies want the very best.
You would think so, it makes sense they would especially in their premium products.
Course it could be that all this higher VI talk is just a bunch of mumbo jumbo and meaningless tripe like thinner is better.
Perhaps they have found that the "real world" performance benefits are not worth the extra cost of large Viscosity index increases. If a VI of 150-170 will allow pumpability on a cold start, and allow the engine to last 250k+ miles then why strive for, and spend more $ on VI increasing? the money is probably better spent in other areas like quality control, an area that AMSOIL, for example, Excels in.
In no way am i against high VI, i see the benefit as well. the question is, how beneficial, and what is the true long term benefit over an engines life? is it 20k more miles? 50k more miles? this is the question. if their oils will allow engines to outlast their bodies and keep the engines running like new for that long, what incentive do they have to increase the VI of their oils? I think this is why we have yet to see super high VI in most brands.
So then Amsoil isn't interested in engine longevity, only extended drain intervals? A cheaper oil than Amsoil with more VI is going to give 20K, or 50K more life? I'm no fan of Amsoil but it does do well in UOA reports, that's if they mean anything in the real world.
demarpaint,
No where in my post did i say they weren't interested in engine longevity. did you read my post thoroughly? i stated that perhaps the cost to performance ratio is not beneficial for Amsoil, and many others for that matter. As you stated, their oils protect well according to used oil analysis so why change? the job is getting done very well right now. And i never said a cheaper oil would perform better. i was asking what is the true benefit in engine protection over the period of time when using a oil with a VI 0f 220 vs and oil with a VI of 150, and gave mileage as and example/question.
Also add to the price of a quart of SS and your well above 10$, the more expensive they have to make the product the harder it is to move the product.
Also CATERHAM, i am open and willing to try one of these oils when my vehicle is out of warranty. As for now i have to stick with a 5w20 grade, so i cannot move to a high VI 0w20 just yet. I've never opposed the high VI oils, just putting in my input as to why certain companies are sticking to average VI. Mostly cost is my Assumption, and providing great protection at a reasonable price.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: donnyj08
No where in my post did i say they weren't interested in engine longevity. did you read my post thoroughly? i stated that perhaps the cost to performance ratio is not beneficial for Amsoil, and many others for that matter. As you stated, their oils protect well according to used oil analysis so why change? the job is getting done very well right now. And i never said a cheaper oil would perform better. i was asking what is the true benefit in engine protection over the period of time when using a oil with a VI 0f 220 vs and oil with a VI of 150, and gave mileage as and example/question.
Also add to the price of a quart of SS and your well above 10$ the more expensive they have to make the product the harder it is to move the product.
I just put a spin on what you said, which btw was good. I was trying to bring up a point or two, I wasn't calling you out. IMO just because an oil has a high VI doesn't necessarily mean it is superior, or Amsoil and Red Line would have hopped on board. Amsoil 0W20 is thicker than most 0W20 oils, as is Red Line's, they must have a reason, or maybe they really are behind the times.
No where in my post did i say they weren't interested in engine longevity. did you read my post thoroughly? i stated that perhaps the cost to performance ratio is not beneficial for Amsoil, and many others for that matter. As you stated, their oils protect well according to used oil analysis so why change? the job is getting done very well right now. And i never said a cheaper oil would perform better. i was asking what is the true benefit in engine protection over the period of time when using a oil with a VI 0f 220 vs and oil with a VI of 150, and gave mileage as and example/question.
Also add to the price of a quart of SS and your well above 10$ the more expensive they have to make the product the harder it is to move the product.
I just put a spin on what you said, which btw was good. I was trying to bring up a point or two, I wasn't calling you out. IMO just because an oil has a high VI doesn't necessarily mean it is superior, or Amsoil and Red Line would have hopped on board. Amsoil 0W20 is thicker than most 0W20 oils, as is Red Line's, they must have a reason, or maybe they really are behind the times.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: donnyj08
No where in my post did i say they weren't interested in engine longevity. did you read my post thoroughly? i stated that perhaps the cost to performance ratio is not beneficial for Amsoil, and many others for that matter. As you stated, their oils protect well according to used oil analysis so why change? the job is getting done very well right now. And i never said a cheaper oil would perform better. i was asking what is the true benefit in engine protection over the period of time when using a oil with a VI 0f 220 vs and oil with a VI of 150, and gave mileage as and example/question.
Also add to the price of a quart of SS and your well above 10$ the more expensive they have to make the product the harder it is to move the product.
I just put a spin on what you said, which btw was good. I was trying to bring up a point or two, I wasn't calling you out. IMO just because an oil has a high VI doesn't necessarily mean it is superior, or Amsoil and Red Line would have hopped on board. Amsoil 0W20 is thicker than most 0W20 oils, as is Red Line's, they must have a reason, or maybe they really are behind the times.
its hard to see the spin on things over typing, i apologize if my response was rude. as to your question, my guess would be as long as a lube continues to provide low wear in and engine, it is worth using. so regardless of VI, oil needs to provide protection. I agree High VI are better, but at the same time i believe a case has to be made for lower VI oils as they have put many a engine well past 200k. So i suppose that maybe Amsoil, and redline are playing midfield so to speak. they are putting products right in the middle for VI. not super low, but not super high, and it seems to be working well. from looking at their oils however, it appears that both amsoil and redline prefer their oils on the "thick" side. on the other hand companies like Sopus tend to run a little thin. the cool part is both the thick and the thin oils are providing great protection and low wear. that is making me think that maybe it does not matter. here we are confused even more haha.
Originally Posted By: donnyj08
No where in my post did i say they weren't interested in engine longevity. did you read my post thoroughly? i stated that perhaps the cost to performance ratio is not beneficial for Amsoil, and many others for that matter. As you stated, their oils protect well according to used oil analysis so why change? the job is getting done very well right now. And i never said a cheaper oil would perform better. i was asking what is the true benefit in engine protection over the period of time when using a oil with a VI 0f 220 vs and oil with a VI of 150, and gave mileage as and example/question.
Also add to the price of a quart of SS and your well above 10$ the more expensive they have to make the product the harder it is to move the product.
I just put a spin on what you said, which btw was good. I was trying to bring up a point or two, I wasn't calling you out. IMO just because an oil has a high VI doesn't necessarily mean it is superior, or Amsoil and Red Line would have hopped on board. Amsoil 0W20 is thicker than most 0W20 oils, as is Red Line's, they must have a reason, or maybe they really are behind the times.
its hard to see the spin on things over typing, i apologize if my response was rude. as to your question, my guess would be as long as a lube continues to provide low wear in and engine, it is worth using. so regardless of VI, oil needs to provide protection. I agree High VI are better, but at the same time i believe a case has to be made for lower VI oils as they have put many a engine well past 200k. So i suppose that maybe Amsoil, and redline are playing midfield so to speak. they are putting products right in the middle for VI. not super low, but not super high, and it seems to be working well. from looking at their oils however, it appears that both amsoil and redline prefer their oils on the "thick" side. on the other hand companies like Sopus tend to run a little thin. the cool part is both the thick and the thin oils are providing great protection and low wear. that is making me think that maybe it does not matter. here we are confused even more haha.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Amsoil 0W20 is thicker than most 0W20 oils, as is Red Line's, they must have a reason, or maybe they really are behind the times.
I would say that there's simply more than one way to skin a cat and more than one way to formulate a motor oil. After all, not all of SOPUS branded synthetics are identical, so if one company tries various philosophies, it's no surprise that Red Line or Amsoil would stick to what got them to where they are today.
Amsoil 0W20 is thicker than most 0W20 oils, as is Red Line's, they must have a reason, or maybe they really are behind the times.
I would say that there's simply more than one way to skin a cat and more than one way to formulate a motor oil. After all, not all of SOPUS branded synthetics are identical, so if one company tries various philosophies, it's no surprise that Red Line or Amsoil would stick to what got them to where they are today.
Originally Posted By: donnyj08
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: donnyj08
No where in my post did i say they weren't interested in engine longevity. did you read my post thoroughly? i stated that perhaps the cost to performance ratio is not beneficial for Amsoil, and many others for that matter. As you stated, their oils protect well according to used oil analysis so why change? the job is getting done very well right now. And i never said a cheaper oil would perform better. i was asking what is the true benefit in engine protection over the period of time when using a oil with a VI 0f 220 vs and oil with a VI of 150, and gave mileage as and example/question.
Also add to the price of a quart of SS and your well above 10$ the more expensive they have to make the product the harder it is to move the product.
I just put a spin on what you said, which btw was good. I was trying to bring up a point or two, I wasn't calling you out. IMO just because an oil has a high VI doesn't necessarily mean it is superior, or Amsoil and Red Line would have hopped on board. Amsoil 0W20 is thicker than most 0W20 oils, as is Red Line's, they must have a reason, or maybe they really are behind the times.
its hard to see the spin on things over typing, i apologize if my response was rude. as to your question, my guess would be as long as a lube continues to provide low wear in and engine, it is worth using. so regardless of VI, oil needs to provide protection. I agree High VI are better, but at the same time i believe a case has to be made for lower VI oils as they have put many a engine well past 200k. So i suppose that maybe Amsoil, and redline are playing midfield so to speak. they are putting products right in the middle for VI. not super low, but not super high, and it seems to be working well. from looking at their oils however, it appears that both amsoil and redline prefer their oils on the "thick" side. on the other hand companies like Sopus tend to run a little thin. the cool part is both the thick and the thin oils are providing great protection and low wear. that is making me think that maybe it does not matter. here we are confused even more haha.
Yes typing to communicate can leave a lot to the imagination. We seem to be thinking along the same lines. There are people taking the stance that thin is in [I was one of them], and that the higher the VI the better the oil. From my reading, thin is in and higher VI doesn't add up to much, if anything at all. So getting hung up on it, or fighting about it here is really meaningless. It is fun, and does make for some interesting reading though. JMO
Trav mentioned something in one of these threads, it might even be this one. There are about three nations in the world hung up on thin oils, and over 190 nations using the exact same engines running thicker oil. Is there a conspiracy to have those engines in the 190+ nations running thicker oil with less VI to self destruct? Is there a conspiracy to have those people burn more fuel with the thicker oil? As of yet I have not seen a reply to Trav's statement that was compelling enough to believe. I wish I knew the real reason, not just educated guesses.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: donnyj08
No where in my post did i say they weren't interested in engine longevity. did you read my post thoroughly? i stated that perhaps the cost to performance ratio is not beneficial for Amsoil, and many others for that matter. As you stated, their oils protect well according to used oil analysis so why change? the job is getting done very well right now. And i never said a cheaper oil would perform better. i was asking what is the true benefit in engine protection over the period of time when using a oil with a VI 0f 220 vs and oil with a VI of 150, and gave mileage as and example/question.
Also add to the price of a quart of SS and your well above 10$ the more expensive they have to make the product the harder it is to move the product.
I just put a spin on what you said, which btw was good. I was trying to bring up a point or two, I wasn't calling you out. IMO just because an oil has a high VI doesn't necessarily mean it is superior, or Amsoil and Red Line would have hopped on board. Amsoil 0W20 is thicker than most 0W20 oils, as is Red Line's, they must have a reason, or maybe they really are behind the times.
its hard to see the spin on things over typing, i apologize if my response was rude. as to your question, my guess would be as long as a lube continues to provide low wear in and engine, it is worth using. so regardless of VI, oil needs to provide protection. I agree High VI are better, but at the same time i believe a case has to be made for lower VI oils as they have put many a engine well past 200k. So i suppose that maybe Amsoil, and redline are playing midfield so to speak. they are putting products right in the middle for VI. not super low, but not super high, and it seems to be working well. from looking at their oils however, it appears that both amsoil and redline prefer their oils on the "thick" side. on the other hand companies like Sopus tend to run a little thin. the cool part is both the thick and the thin oils are providing great protection and low wear. that is making me think that maybe it does not matter. here we are confused even more haha.
Yes typing to communicate can leave a lot to the imagination. We seem to be thinking along the same lines. There are people taking the stance that thin is in [I was one of them], and that the higher the VI the better the oil. From my reading, thin is in and higher VI doesn't add up to much, if anything at all. So getting hung up on it, or fighting about it here is really meaningless. It is fun, and does make for some interesting reading though. JMO
Trav mentioned something in one of these threads, it might even be this one. There are about three nations in the world hung up on thin oils, and over 190 nations using the exact same engines running thicker oil. Is there a conspiracy to have those engines in the 190+ nations running thicker oil with less VI to self destruct? Is there a conspiracy to have those people burn more fuel with the thicker oil? As of yet I have not seen a reply to Trav's statement that was compelling enough to believe. I wish I knew the real reason, not just educated guesses.
Trav has a very good point. I'm not a fan of very thick oils, but I do understand that logically most engines will be fine With thick oils. I've spent a while living in a Central American country a few years ago, and they really have nothing thinner than 10w30 down there, yet their engines do not mind. There are a few engines that are and exception and need thin oil for the operation of mechanical parts however. My past experience with car maintenance in a 3rd world country, has kinda made me not completely jump on the bandwagon with super thin high VI oils. I believe they are beneficial, but not cost effective/practical for 60% of the world. Could warm climates benefit from them? Absolutely, but unfortunately expensive oils are not practical for many developing countries, so a 10w30/40 esso/Mobil/valvoline suffices in Central America at least.
Originally Posted By: donnyj08
There are a few engines that are and exception and need thin oil for the operation of mechanical parts however. My past experience with car maintenance in a 3rd world country, has kinda made me not completely jump on the bandwagon with super thin high VI oils. I believe they are beneficial, but not cost effective/practical for 60% of the world. Could warm climates benefit from them? Absolutely, but unfortunately expensive oils are not practical for many developing countries, so a 10w30/40 esso/Mobil/valvoline suffices in Central America at least.
Once again I'm not calling you out, we're thinking somewhat along the same lines. Not all parts of the world that are using thicker oils are hot. There are some very cold places in the world that are using 30 grade oils with less VI and the engines are doing just fine. Remember also that not all of these engines are in old vehicles. They have the same exact design engine used in the US, with the same clearances, etc. that need so called thin oil to operate. They're working fine on 30 grade oil, where in the USA the only recommended oil in the owners manual is a 20 grade oil. They aren't blowing up, and many are lasting very long. IMO most of the swing to 20 grade oil is CAFE driven here. I'm beginning to think the only way to convince me that a high VI thin oil is better than a thicker oil will be to see actual engine tear downs, and measurements comparing them to new. Otherwise its just speculation. JMO
There are a few engines that are and exception and need thin oil for the operation of mechanical parts however. My past experience with car maintenance in a 3rd world country, has kinda made me not completely jump on the bandwagon with super thin high VI oils. I believe they are beneficial, but not cost effective/practical for 60% of the world. Could warm climates benefit from them? Absolutely, but unfortunately expensive oils are not practical for many developing countries, so a 10w30/40 esso/Mobil/valvoline suffices in Central America at least.
Once again I'm not calling you out, we're thinking somewhat along the same lines. Not all parts of the world that are using thicker oils are hot. There are some very cold places in the world that are using 30 grade oils with less VI and the engines are doing just fine. Remember also that not all of these engines are in old vehicles. They have the same exact design engine used in the US, with the same clearances, etc. that need so called thin oil to operate. They're working fine on 30 grade oil, where in the USA the only recommended oil in the owners manual is a 20 grade oil. They aren't blowing up, and many are lasting very long. IMO most of the swing to 20 grade oil is CAFE driven here. I'm beginning to think the only way to convince me that a high VI thin oil is better than a thicker oil will be to see actual engine tear downs, and measurements comparing them to new. Otherwise its just speculation. JMO
It all boils down to as thin as possible as thick as necessary, doesn't it?
In some places and with some vehicles, meeting that basic requirement might be a XW40 or XXW40. In other places and with other vehicles, it might be a XW20. I think it's a mistake to assume that one end of that scale is automatically better than another without considering all the individual factors. These would include the engine, the operational conditions, climate and the particular oil being used.
In truth, most engines will operate well, or well-enough, within a broad range of viscosities. That's the saving grace for all those standing on either of the thick or thin soapboxes. You really have to go radically outside the box to reach a sub-optimal condition where bad results are immediately noticeable. That optimal viscosity point is still there for every engine, but it's dancing around depending on the individual conditions.
What's the optimal viscosity point? IMO, it the point at which efficiency and protection converge for a particular engine in its operational situation.
We can take a lot of clues from the OEM recommendations, no matter which part of the world they come, if we look at the prevailing conditions in that region. But "clues" aren't always gospel at either end of the scale and saying one is universally better than another is silly.
A lot of testing has been done, is being done, to validate the thinner oils. From what I've seen, more testing has been done in that direction than to prove heavier oils are "better." That's probably as it should be, since thick oils are the "no brainer" choice. If you don't care about efficiency, that's a safe direction. Going thinner requires more care and better oils.
In some places and with some vehicles, meeting that basic requirement might be a XW40 or XXW40. In other places and with other vehicles, it might be a XW20. I think it's a mistake to assume that one end of that scale is automatically better than another without considering all the individual factors. These would include the engine, the operational conditions, climate and the particular oil being used.
In truth, most engines will operate well, or well-enough, within a broad range of viscosities. That's the saving grace for all those standing on either of the thick or thin soapboxes. You really have to go radically outside the box to reach a sub-optimal condition where bad results are immediately noticeable. That optimal viscosity point is still there for every engine, but it's dancing around depending on the individual conditions.
What's the optimal viscosity point? IMO, it the point at which efficiency and protection converge for a particular engine in its operational situation.
We can take a lot of clues from the OEM recommendations, no matter which part of the world they come, if we look at the prevailing conditions in that region. But "clues" aren't always gospel at either end of the scale and saying one is universally better than another is silly.
A lot of testing has been done, is being done, to validate the thinner oils. From what I've seen, more testing has been done in that direction than to prove heavier oils are "better." That's probably as it should be, since thick oils are the "no brainer" choice. If you don't care about efficiency, that's a safe direction. Going thinner requires more care and better oils.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
