GC 0w-30 in VAG 1.8T

Chris Jefferson · Oct 22, 2003

this is from my new (used) 2000 Golf 1.8T GL and sample was taken at 4200 miles.

My sample Average

Aluminium 4 3
Chromium 0 1
FE 16 14
copper 13 8
lead 1 0
Tin 0 0
Molybdenum 15 33
Nickel 1 1
Managanese 1 1
Silver 0 0
Ti 0 0
Potassium 0 0
Boron 0 66
Silicon 6 11-good ol VAG air filter!
Sodium 1 6
Calcium 2679 2323
magnesium 87 257
Phosphorus 787 807
Zinc 911 974
Barium 0 1

Tested Values: SUS Visc. Flashpoint Fuel%
65.8 385F
Anti-freeze Water Insolubles
0.00 0.00 0.3

heres their comments

CHRISTOPHER: Based on these data, we think your have bought yourself a good engine. Universal
averages show typical wear metals for an oil from this type of engine after 6,335 miles run on the oil.
Your oil was in use 4,200 miles, and we found all wear from the engine at around average levels and
in the correct balance to show normal mechanical parts inside. Air and oil filtration look okay. This was
0W/30 engine oil with no gas or anti-freeze in it. No one oil outperforms others for wear. Use 6,500 mi
next sample. The TBN was 4.1, plenty strong yet.

Quick_lude · Oct 22, 2003

What is the oil capacity of this engine in the golf? 4L? How hard do you drive the turbo? Good report.

Jelly · Oct 22, 2003

quote:

Originally posted by Chris Jefferson:
No one oil outperforms others for wear.

Huh?

Leo · Oct 22, 2003

Nothing outstanding from the GC with respect to the univeral averages in this report (but good nevertheless!!)

Patman · Oct 22, 2003

A great report! You might have one of the early batches which is hindered with 9ppm of iron to begin with, making your iron levels look higher than they really are. Lead is awesome, so is chromium! Viscosity held itself extremely well in the turbo! Like I've said before, this oil definitely does not thin out like Mobil 1 0w40. The more reports we see the more this becomes clear.

This is your second run with GC isn't it? Whatever happened to the UOA you were going to post a few months ago on it?

VeeDubb · Oct 22, 2003

quote:

Originally posted by Patman:
A great report! You might have one of the early batches which is hindered with 9ppm of iron to begin with, making your iron levels look higher than they really are. Lead is awesome, so is chromium! Viscosity held itself extremely well in the turbo! Like I've said before, this oil definitely does not thin out like Mobil 1 0w40. The more reports we see the more this becomes clear.

This is your second run with GC isn't it? Whatever happened to the UOA you were going to post a few months ago on it?

I was thinking the iron was a bit higher than I would expect til Patman mentioned the possibility of high iron count in the virgin. So it looks like a good report.

Patman, I don't remember what the virgin viscosity was so did the viscosity change after 4200 miles? Whatever the case, it sure is thick so that is definitely encouraging.

Quick Lude,
I believe the capacity in this version of the VW 1.8 is 4.6 quarts.

[ October 23, 2003, 07:09 AM: Message edited by: VeeDubb ]

Mark in NY · Oct 22, 2003

"No one oil outperforms others for wear"

Investigating this issue is why I am here.!

Is that statement something that is agreed on by those in the business with more experience than I ?

What do you say about this Terry ?

Patman · Oct 22, 2003

quote:

Patman, I don't remember what the virgin viscosity was so did the viscosity change after 4200 miles? Whatever the case, it sure is thick so that is definitely encouraging.

There were a couple of VOAs on GC 0w30 that were done by Blackstone and one showed the starting viscosity at 66.2, the other at 65.8. So in either case your viscosity did not change much, if at all! Awesome!

doyall · Oct 22, 2003

quote:

A great report!

quote:

Awesome!

Come on Patman. It's a statistically average report at best. Your bias is showing.

jsharp · Oct 22, 2003

quote:

Originally posted by doyall:

quote:

A great report!

Click to expand...

quote:

Awesome!

Click to expand...

Come on Patman. It's a statistically average report at best. Your bias is showing.

In fact, if you reduce it to ppm/1k miles some of the numbers are almost 2X the average values...

[ October 23, 2003, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: jsharp ]

Spector · Oct 22, 2003

Also, from the lab's language I have the gut feeling they don't have many of these engines in their data base. Ave of 6335 miles???? Kind of strange, sounds like one end point!

Patman · Oct 22, 2003

quote:

Originally posted by doyall:
Come on Patman. It's a statistically average report at best. Your bias is showing.

Forget about the universal averages (see my explanation below as to why), just look at the report on it's own. We know some of the early batches of GC had 9ppm of iron, so taking that into account, his iron is very low and so is his lead, chromium and aluminum. And in a turbo engine too. Viscosity stayed virtually unchanged. Copper is a tad high, but that's the only one.

No matter how you slice it, this report is very good.

How can we trust a universal average which shows 0 lead by the way? Is Blackstone saying that out of all the people that send oil in from a 1.8T, that not a single person had any lead in their oil? It simply makes no sense.

So you're telling me you're not impressed with seeing 1ppm of lead and 0ppm of chromium in a turbo engine?

doyall · Oct 22, 2003

You're missing the point OCB. A good UOA is a good UOA regardless of what kind of oil is used. Patman appears to have such a fondness for GC that he will say good and wonderful things about it when good UOA's are posted, but will not say good and wonderful things about other oils that produce equally as good UOA's. He was using this statement

quote:

So you're telling me you're not impressed with seeing 1ppm of lead and 0ppm of chromium in a turbo engine?

to justify his exuberance for GC and I was merely pointing out that his exuberance was not being extended to other brands of oil under like circumstances.

I'm not trying to flame Patman. It's just when we lose objectivity, we tend to suscumb to the Castrol's-oils-suck-because-of-Castrol's-marketing-strategy illogic. When subjectivity and illogic prevail, Bob might as well close the board down.

Edit: Very politically correct edit you just made Buster.

[ October 23, 2003, 01:39 PM: Message edited by: doyall ]

Patman · Oct 22, 2003

Even if I don't post my comments on a UOA does not mean I'm not impressed with them.

Those are indeed impressive UOAs you listed above. Perhaps I do feel compelled to make sure I post on the GC threads since there seem to be a lot of GC haters on here for some reason, and I like to re-enforce the fact that this oil has shown us nothing but good reports so far.

I think if you go back and look at a bunch of UOAs on here that are very impressive and are using all different types of oils, you'll see my comments in there just the same.

doyall · Oct 22, 2003

quote:

Perhaps I do feel compelled to make sure I post on the GC threads since there seem to be a lot of GC haters on here for some reason, and I like to re-enforce the fact that this oil has shown us nothing but good reports so far.

All well and good. Just trying to keep everything in perspective. No hard feelings I hope.

TooSlick · Oct 22, 2003

Patman,

For comparison, on a 5500 mile run of "AMO", 10w-40 in my 225 hp Audi TT, I had:

Fe, 8 ppm
Cr, 1 ppm
Pb, 2 ppm
Cu, 12 ppm

TBN was 8.1

I'd say wear is average in this GC, 0w30 sample, shear stability is excellent and TBN retention is below average ...Of course, a lot depends on the engine design. This 1.8L turbo generates excellent wear numbers even with the thinner M1, 5w30.

When you finish comparing the GC, 0w30 to Mobil 1, what you will find is they perform about the same in most engines. There will be a few engine types where the GC, 0w30 does better than Mobil 1 and vice versa. I'm 99% certain that will be the case.

[ October 23, 2003, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: TooSlick ]

jsharp · Oct 23, 2003

quote:

Originally posted by TooSlick:
Patman,

For comparison, on a 5500 mile run of "AMO", 10w-40 in my 225 hp Audi TT, I had:

Fe, 8 ppm
Cr, 1 ppm
Pb, 2 ppm
Cu, 12 ppm

TBN was 8.1

I'd say wear is average in this GC, 0w30 sample, shear stability is excellent and TBN retention is below average ...Of course, a lot depends on the engine design. This 1.8L turbo generates excellent wear numbers even with the thinner M1, 5w30.

When you finish comparing the GC, 0w30 to Mobil 1, what you will find is they perform about the same in most engines. There will be a few engine types where the GC, 0w30 does better than Mobil 1 and vice versa. I'm 99% certain that will be the case.

Engine design, and I'm starting to wonder if even small changes in usage over an interval can make a noticable difference when the numbers get this low.

Between that and the obvious measurement errors we've all seen with these UOA's it starts to look to me like we may be splitting imaginary hairs...

Patman · Oct 23, 2003

quote:

Originally posted by doyall:

quote:

Perhaps I do feel compelled to make sure I post on the GC threads since there seem to be a lot of GC haters on here for some reason, and I like to re-enforce the fact that this oil has shown us nothing but good reports so far.

Click to expand...

All well and good. Just trying to keep everything in perspective. No hard feelings I hope.

Nope. All is good.

TooSlick · Oct 23, 2003

jsharp,

There is a significant difference in wear patterns, simply due to driving style. I can almost predict what an oil analysis will look like - compared to other vehicles of the same type - by asking how often you replace your front brake pads?

If you are doing hard acceleration, cornering and braking, continually loading and unloading the engine, you'll see much higher wear. Engines generate their lowest wear rates under constant rpm, constant load conditions. The more you vary from this, the worse it gets.

Patman · Oct 23, 2003

quote:

Originally posted by TooSlick:

TBN was 8.1

I'd say wear is average in this GC, 0w30 sample, shear stability is excellent and TBN retention is below average ...

In my experiences so far I've found the TBN retention to be pretty good.

My sister's very first run with GC in a 5500 mile interval showed a 6.90 TBN, down from 9.39 virgin. Keep in mind it's mixed in with a bit of Mobil 1 too, so this second run (of which I should have a UOA next week, with more than 6k miles on it too) should be a better showing.

My own first run with GC, albeit a very short 3k interval, showed it's TBN only went from 9.39 down to 8.48.

I make no claims that this is a 25,000 mile oil based on these results, but based on some of the stringent tests this oil passes, it has to be able to handle some relatively long drain intervals.

Maybe I am a bit biased towards this oil, but it is not without good reason. This oil has worked very well for me and in each case where I've switched a car over to it, the wear numbers have improved nicely. I'm fully confident in this oil's abilities. FWIW, I feel the same confidence about the abilities of Amsoil and Redline too, and to a slightly lesser extent, Schaeffer Oil (I know this oil has shown great results for many people, but it just didn't for me, which is why I said "to a slightly lesser extent")

GC 0w-30 in VAG 1.8T

Similar threads