The following link is for our new Euro oils Product data sheet
Euro Oils PDS
These will be added to the web store at advlubrication.com shortly
Euro Oils PDS
These will be added to the web store at advlubrication.com shortly
High Performance Lubricants Euro Oil PDS
- Thread starter High Performance Lubricants
- Start date
If possible what is the Noack of the 5w30?
Hmm, interesting!
If only my stash wasn't out of control
Moly and zinc levels?
I understand they do not run that test.
I would like explanation why and then if not how they know it meets or exceeds performance requirements of various manufacturers?
Ask them im just telling you this was brought up with the new diesel specs as well. I am running the new Cold Weather 5w40 CK4 after conversation with Dave and discussed the oils I run it with full confidence knowing the approach they take in the oils they make.
Last edited:
Simply put, because we know what the volatility of the PAO’s are. We also know how we made it. We are not a company that cuts corners and NOACK is not something that will be an issue for us.
David
David
By .013?
Interesting.
Do you plan on getting a Canadian distributor?
Do you plan on getting a Canadian distributor?
NOACK is going to be very low with these oils because of the base oils used. Even the 10% max in some Euro oils is a bit lenient of a standard. It would be like asking an undergrad student to pass a GED exam. There's no point.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2002
- Messages
- 4,197
If they're going to take it that far then yes. 3.500 is 3.500. A minimum value is the cut-off. If it's below that then it's below MINUMUM and therefore not acceptable. You have to draw the line somewhere.
Last edited:
I understand your argument there.
I understand if this is business secret but do you plan substantial sale in Euro market, and if so, why not seeking some approvals?
I have 8ltrs of 300V 5W40 waiting next track season, but I will give it a try in 5W40 flavor on track/DD use.
It would pass approval test based on that value.
When company states HTHS 3.5 or KV100 for example 12.8, that is typical value. Small variations are allowed. This is not heart surgery.
CleanSump
Site Donor 2022
What's the sulfated ash contents of the C3/229.51/C30 oils? That's the important driver and you don't list it.
No NOACK, no SA. and HTHS is "close enough". I'll have to pass.
"We know so we don't bother" doesn't tell the consumer anything. Tell
Other "meets the spec" companies won't list SA and their HTHS is "close enough".
It's not up to the consumer to purchase and get a VOA. It's up to YOU to tell me what I'm getting.
Sorry, no better than grocery store no-name until you tell us the the numbers.
No NOACK, no SA. and HTHS is "close enough". I'll have to pass.
"We know so we don't bother" doesn't tell the consumer anything. Tell
Other "meets the spec" companies won't list SA and their HTHS is "close enough".
It's not up to the consumer to purchase and get a VOA. It's up to YOU to tell me what I'm getting.
Sorry, no better than grocery store no-name until you tell us the the numbers.
Close enough HTHS is not an issue. I guarantee you Mobil1 doesn’t have exactly 3.5 in ESP.
But I generally agree on other points. As usual, I always have an issue with “meets” and “exceeds.” Then getting approval is not an issue.
We are primarily an industrial company. We do have a passion for cars and for racing. The bottom line is we have no intentions on taking over any kind of automotive oils market. What we do is prove ourselves in racing with some very respectable teams that could really choose anyone they want to. We don't pay them, we don't write check #1. The most we do for a team is provide oil. We learn a lot from racing. We take what we learn and apply these things to other products we make. We are extremely fortunate to have a couple of people working with/for us that are cubic smart in our industry. We formulate products making decisions that I doubt a company of any size would ever produce if we published the formula. We simply put a lot higher quality and quantity of chemistry in very good base stocks and the cost would be way too high to interest someone producing large volumes.
We do not seek approvals. We start with approved chemistry and make sound decisions to improve the products from there. We do a lot of testing internally and with 3rd parties to make sure we produce products with integrity. We of course use oil analysis to verify that the products do what they were intended to do which is work in the field. Our staff involved with technical decisions has over 140 years of combined experience. We don't formulate to minimum standards.
With respect to Noack, We start with group III oils and go up from there in our plant. That is rare. We choose good base oils and formulate with low volatility in mind. There have already been examples again in the real world of users that see reduced oil consumption when compared to their previous oil. Is that absolute? Probably not, but not because we didn't make good choices in base oil. We do have a TGA. One of Dr. Rudnicks publications was a method to use a TGA to roughly correspond to a NOACK. Since this is not a problem area for us we don't run NOACK. It's not a problem for me as its is ultimately up to me to be sure we make products with integrity once again.
I met a moderator of BITOG some time ago. We spoke and he began using some of our oils. I chose to get involved with BITOG and am here for people who share the same ideas of looking for a higher quality product. We will likely never be a good match for someone looking for the cheapest oil because we will never be that with respect to price. It does not make sense for us to go through the expense to seek approvals when we are not in the business of cutting corners. If that is not understandable that is completely fine.
David
Last edited: