GF-4 Standard vs Ultra - Seq IIIG

[Johnny]

Folks can think what they want, but to those who think they used photoshop, cherry picked, or doctored those pictures in any way, well you just know nothing about how Shell Oil Company operates.

One hundred years from know none of us will know the difference anyway. Carry on.

 

[zddp77]

Keep in mind Sopus is getting these results with the additive package used in Ultra not the basestock. I can take a group 2 basestock and if I really do my homework on additive chemistry I can get the same results. This isn't a stupid Mobil 1 frying pan test... LOL.

 

[Johnny]

Absolutely it's the additive package.

 

[daman]

Well yea

 

[river_rat]

Originally Posted By: FL_Rob
Also there's no line at the rod cap,those are simulated rods.

Could be sintered type?

 

[sbergman27]

Originally Posted By: Johnny
Folks can think what they want, but to those who think they used photoshop, cherry picked, or doctored those pictures in any way,

Don't lump all those together as though they were the same thing. I doubt that they photoshopped or otherwise doctored the photos. However, I would be very surprised if they did *not* cherry pick the photos to use. You imply that they would simply grab two photos at random and use them. I seriously doubt that they would have done that.

Also note that how well or poorly Ultra did against the mystery GF-4 oil in the test is a different question than whether they picked out photos which showed Ultra in the best light.

Again... these photos mean absolutely nothing by themselves. It's the rest of the details of the test, and resulting data that would have mattered.

 

[buster]

Originally Posted By: zddp77
Keep in mind Sopus is getting these results with the additive package used in Ultra not the basestock. I can take a group 2 basestock and if I really do my homework on additive chemistry I can get the same results. This isn't a stupid Mobil 1 frying pan test... LOL.


I doubt you could get the same results. Yes we know it's the additive package, in conjunction with the base oil.

Why has it taken 15 years for Valvoline to make an oil that finally meets GM 4718M? Why doesn't Synpower meet HTO-06?

Apparently a lot of people on here can't read.

Quote:
The test used to generate the piston pictures is an industry standard ASTM test run in a real engine on a dynamometer at an industry-approved third-party lab. The two pistons were run in the standard Sequence IIIG piston deposit test, using the same fuel, the test hours and the same test conditions; the only thing that was different was the oil used to run the test.

 

[BBDartCA]

Marketing and science are two different things. Here is a summary of a lwasuit between Castrol and Pennzoil based on allegedly false claims made by Pennzoil against Castrol products.

http://openjurist.org/987/f2d/939

 

[buster]

Yeah, 1992. That was pre-Shell takeover of PZ.

The test Shell used above, is pretty straightforward. Take two oils, and compare them in a Seq IIIG test. People are so cynical.

http://www.amsoil.com/performancetests/sequence_3f.aspx

Amsoil performed a similar test years ago, using the Seq IIIF, which is equivalent to running the IIIG 2 x.



*So let me get this straight. Running two oils back to back under the same conditions in a legitimate ASTM sequence test is marketing, but 4-ball wear testing, "superior sludge" protection, "more horsepower" and "let my mechanic be the judge" are more believable? Wow.

 

[Bill in Utah]

Originally Posted By: buster

Why doesn't Synpower meet HTO-06?



How many vehicles requires that spec? Why pay the $$ for something that really is such a *slight* part of the market? (like well below a single percent...)

This IS the PROBLEM with all the manufactures making up spec's. What is so special about Honda's turbo motor that lets say a Subaru turbo does not need a special oil?

Take care, bill

 

[Johnny]

You mean Subaru does not have a SBU-06 test?

 

[buster]

I agree Bill, but my point was oils have to be good at doing many different things.

 

[Bill in Utah]

Originally Posted By: Johnny
You mean Subaru does not have a SBU-06 test?

Soon I'm sure if it can make some money for a oil company and Subaru gets kickbacks.

Its going to be interesting to see if Ford comes out with a special spec or require one for their V6 turbo'd Truck motors. If they do its the death of them in fleet service. (both in how long the motor actually does last or even worst, sales)

No fleet manager is going to buy "special" oil for the fleet. If its a diesel then 15w-40 or possible 5w-40 and 5w-30/10w-30 for the rest of the fleet.

Originally Posted By: buster
I agree Bill, but my point was oils have to be good at doing many different things.


Agree. But rating a specific oil only because it does or does not meet such a spec that is so small as far as market share does not come up on the radar for me.

Of course, I've really never been know to get caught up on spec A or B.. NOW C is the killer!

Take care, bill

 

[buster]

The only reason I bring up HTO-06 is because 1. Honda knows engines and their testing means a lot to me. 2. Many oils failed that test miserably. 3. Engines today are smaller, producing more HP and demanding oils that can withstand higher engine temps.

Look at GF-5. One of the big improvement areas will be high temp deposits. GF-4 doesn't cut it for turbos IMO.

 

[demarpaint]

I have a lot of respect for Shell and Pennzoil, and use their products. While I have my doubts, [being a NY'er will cause that], I do believe they hand selected the pistons for the photos. And yes the Mobil 1 frying pan test was quite funny.

As far as the Honda HTO-06 test, I agree with Buster 100%, which is one of the reasons why I'm going to give Edge 0W20 a try. JMO

 

[buster]

Not impressed with Edge so far. They highlight their great Seq IVA testing, but fail to mention Seq IIIG and other tests. Low Tbn in a lot of UOA's. In addition, it's a BP product.

 

[prax]

Originally Posted By: sbergman27
Originally Posted By: Johnny
Folks can think what they want, but to those who think they used photoshop, cherry picked, or doctored those pictures in any way,

Don't lump all those together as though they were the same thing. I doubt that they photoshopped or otherwise doctored the photos. However, I would be very surprised if they did *not* cherry pick the photos to use. You imply that they would simply grab two photos at random and use them. I seriously doubt that they would have done that.

Also note that how well or poorly Ultra did against the mystery GF-4 oil in the test is a different question than whether they picked out photos which showed Ultra in the best light.

Again... these photos mean absolutely nothing by themselves. It's the rest of the details of the test, and resulting data that would have mattered.


JMO: Sequence VG wouldn't be an API/ILSAC test if it wasn't consistent. The real set of photos wouldn't be so different from what we got.

I'd just like to know how well PP performs. I believe Ultra was formulated to get the highest rating for this test.

 

[SilverGGA]

Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah

How many vehicles requires that spec? Why pay the $$ for something that really is such a *slight* part of the market? (like well below a single percent...)

This IS the PROBLEM with all the manufactures making up spec's. What is so special about Honda's turbo motor that lets say a Subaru turbo does not need a special oil?

Take care, bill


I fully agree with the reasoning.

On the other hand, the reason I look for these specs is that it shows that an oil meets that particular standard - supposedly higher than the generic API/ILSAC specs.

Granted, a lot of oils which are not certified, actually meets or even surpass the standard.

For me, I like to keep things simple and trust the certifications, instead of wife tales and my butt dyno.

Maybe it is the engineer in me, but when I see two resumes, one graduated from MIT and the other one from Phoenix Online, I do not want to waste time and figure out whether the Phoenix Online graduate is as good or better as the MIT graduate. I have the same philosophy towards oil specs.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: buster
Not impressed with Edge so far. They highlight their great Seq IVA testing, but fail to mention Seq IIIG and other tests. Low Tbn in a lot of UOA's. In addition, it's a BP product.

I don't like them much either. But I do like the specs of their 0W20 better than the Mobil offering

. PP is nowhere to be found in 0W20, PU 0W20 isn't out yet. I'd rather not order the Toyota oil from Ebay, and now Mobil is making it for Toyota anyway. {I realize it is a different formula than M1 0W20}. The local dealers are stoned with their prices for it. Besides many of you know how I feel about XOM.

Maybe in time my feelings for XOM will change.

I don't do extended drains, so for $29.99 for 5 qts and a top of the line oil filter it isn't a bad deal. JMO

 

[sbergman27]

Originally Posted By: buster
*So let me get this straight. Running two oils back to back under the same conditions in a legitimate ASTM sequence test is marketing, but 4-ball wear testing, "superior sludge" protection, "more horsepower" and "let my mechanic be the judge" are more believable?

Look. All I'm saying is that posting photos of one side of two pistons as evidence simply doesn't mean anything. I'm sure that this sequence doesn't specify that the results should be evaluated by taking photos of one side of one piston for each oil and posting them on a marketing site. Surely it says something about the maximum thickness of deposit on any piston should be no greater than ---- etc., etc.

You and SOPUS are *not* presenting the results of the sequence here. You are presenting the photos of a tiny fraction of the surface area of the pistons involved which SOPUS' marketing department has decided to show us.

This is not to say that Ultra is or isn't truly excellent at deposit control. It is only to say that this evidence is of *very* limited value in the absence of more detailed results.

I'm surprised, Buster, that you are acting like such an Ultra fanboy in this thread. I honestly wouldn't have expected it. People are displaying a healthy and justified skepticism regarding the presentation of very incomplete results as definitive proof of Ultra's performance, relative too... well... we don't really know what, do we?

BTW, don't get me started on Scamsoil's shady marketing ploys. I'm certainly not comparing SOPUS' practices to that.