The method I have outlined is "good enough" for me. If I do 2 track weekends this year with the HPL oils and see what I hope to see vs. the other oil I've run for 2x track events, what else can you really do/say? It works better in that sense so I've proven it to myself or those here that may have a similar car setup/use.
High Performance Lubricants Euro oils...whose going to try it?
- Thread starter TiGeo
- Start date
I get to define what is adeqequate data and the wisdom of using it. I am saying the data I have while not perfect is certainly adequate to spend $100 trying this oil and if it's not to you then ok?
Like I said, I agree with your thought process and your decision to use the oil, but I just don't know if I would put a ton of weight into the data you obtain.
Acknolwedged and understood - the issue here on BITOG often is....nobody ever has enough data to say anything b/c nobody buys 2 cars new (like a twins study!) and keeps variables constant to compare oils/additives/filters over a typical 100-200K lifespan of a car to draw conclusions which is really what you need to do this perfectly. So what do we do? We trust the oil companies and the specs/approvals and end users results which I think is the way to go most of the time. When you move away from typical use that probably 99% of users on this site are doing into the use/mods like I have for the car in question, you'll never collect enough data b/c the car won't last long enough or you simply don't use the car in that way often enough. Gut feel I hate to say it comes into play as does making decisions based on a more limited dataset - remember, I'm a scientist so I understand the limits of what I'm doing.
Even if you did buy two new cars for a twins study as you say that still wouldn’t be sufficient since no one, ever, can keep every variable in everyday driving exactly the same. Not possible. One must always run this type of comparative test in a laboratory with a proper test apparatus and standardized equipment. Plus beyond that a $30 spectrographic analysis isn’t the proper tool for the job so you’re really blown out of the water before you even start.
If formulators and manufacturers could run a few cars around and then do a UOA to make comparative tests on the oil that’s the way it would be done. But it most definitely is not. Yes your data set is limited but that’s not really the core problem. It’s far worse than that.
Worse in that I spend $100 that I didn't need to b/c M1 or LM would have given the same performance? Even just basing my $100 on the HTHS value of this vs. the other common 5W40s says it's doing a better job under extreme conditions.
Well I never said that, what I did say is that relative oil performance isn’t quantified by the UOA.
And you’re obtaining the HT/HS via the Blackstone analysis?
Off of HPL's PDS...
What onr needs is access to test results for OE certs. Obviously that's not going to happen so we're left with having infer.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2020
- Messages
- 178
Once again we have the 'if it meets the spec' and the 'cost of operation' person chime in.
Here's the thing. We have hard, white paper data that concludes that better base oils (group IV/V), and certain additives provide superior characteristics in engine oil. I'm not going to find them all for you because I've already read them and don't need your approval of my knowledge, but you can find it yourself.
Even if an off the shelf oil will perform the job we require adequately under 'normal conditions', some of us like an additional margin for error, especially those of us that use our cars in unconventional ways (the racetrack) and/or modify them with performance enhancers. **** happens. We've put some extra sticky tires on the car and the oil now moves farther away from the pickup in the pan. Then during a particularly high-g corner we hit the track curb and the car bounces, meaning the oil pickup is temporarily 'dry'. Running superior oil with a great additive package can definitely turn this situation from major to not-so-major. An injector is dirty and one cylinder is running a little lean and therefore extra hot. We're running the turbo at a higher boost than factory, meaning it's spinning faster and therefore getting hotter and trying harder to shear the oil. A superior lubricant provides the margin of error for these conditions.
I mean hell, we've seen this in tons of turbochargers over the years, someone is running a turbo hard with inadequate oil and the thing cokes up and dies, or kills it's thrust bearings. Change the turbo, change the lubricant, and it never happens again. Huh, must be coincidence, because that other oil "met the spec" for the engine, huh? The engineers that spec the oil can't and don't see every possible condition the engine will be used in, nor is it their job to. Their job is to produce an engine that makes the performance and emissions numbers under the majority of conditions with the weight of oil that they need to do it's job under those same conditions. That's it, they don't care about the rest because they're not paid to.
It's also not the job of the big oil formulators to figure this out or to tailor to the smaller market demand of the people that want the absolute best. Their product is being built for the average consumer, and needs to 'meet the spec' and/or provide some advantage that is easily marketable, like guarantees of long OCI's or 'the official oil of Nascar'. This has the advantage of allowing the economy of scale, meaning they can produce some really good oils at low cost because they deal in such massive quantities. It's still not the same as producing an absolutely top of the line product for the niche market of enthusiasts.
Since we have these facts, along with an absolutely massive amount of anecdotal data that supports them, why are you still on about how nothing can possibly ever be better than an oil that meets the spec and we're all wasting our time and money? Your perspective is incorrect. There are superior lubricants that perform better and result in a better performing engine with a lower wear rate. We can all agree that UOA's have too many variables to use as hard data. Until we find some way to confirm the science of better base oils and additives in an engine (they're already confirmed in lab tests), then we'll have to keep trusting the evidence of well-documented engines that outlast and outperform their typical peers due to using these superior products. End of story.
Also consider that the OEMs don't care if the engine lives a long life. They only care that the car survives the warranty period. After the warranty period, they are far more interested in selling you a new car than keeping your current one running. That's part of the reason dealership labor and replacement part markups are so high at dealerships is to push you in that direction.
"Hey, your transmission went out at 105k miles, just outside of the warranty... dang. That'll be $3,500 for a new transmission OR.... we'll give you $3,500 trade in, as is, for a new 2022 model over here. You can drive out of here today, in style, with a brand new running vehicle. Here, take a test drive while we diagnose your old car."
"Hey, your transmission went out at 105k miles, just outside of the warranty... dang. That'll be $3,500 for a new transmission OR.... we'll give you $3,500 trade in, as is, for a new 2022 model over here. You can drive out of here today, in style, with a brand new running vehicle. Here, take a test drive while we diagnose your old car."
Some VI improvers are better than others. The HPL use of polymers with long branching structure, multi-arm branching or star structure will certainly provide better shear stability as the oil in service ages and therefore it is appropriate for longer drain applications but will also have an impact on total formulation cost. The HPL use of such polymers will certainly improve the durability and efficiency of the final blend.
At the end it's all about balance between performance and formulation cost of the final product which eventually meets and or exceed the required specifications.
At the end it's all about balance between performance and formulation cost of the final product which eventually meets and or exceed the required specifications.
Last edited:
This is emphatically not true.
4WD
$50 site donor 2025
One of the earliest threads I can recall on star polymers
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/new-viscosity-modifiers-from-infineum.198107/page-2
edyvw
$50 site donor 2025
It is ridiculous assumption that they don’t care. Typical marketing by oil blenders that claim 10X protection etc. and people fall for it.
My point is that car makers would much rather sell you a new car than help keep your current one running.
4WD
$50 site donor 2025
Yeah - vehicles last pretty long compared to when I was young …
last I heard dealerships average 44% of profit from the service department - so something else does exist between the owner and OEM that takes big money from both …
don’t even know how a dealership is so compelled to sell you a vehicle now - our lots are still very bare
last I heard dealerships average 44% of profit from the service department - so something else does exist between the owner and OEM that takes big money from both …
don’t even know how a dealership is so compelled to sell you a vehicle now - our lots are still very bare
Last edited:
True but that won't happen if their vehicles turn to junk with lubricant related failures "just out of warranty". The reality is that choice of lubricant failures almost never occur today. Engine failures are either the result of bad engineering or owner negligence.
Tired of reading this.
You think a manufacturer can build its reputation on "surviving the warranty period?" That's not how it works. Dealers may want cars in their shop, but manufacturers would prefer not to damage their reputation by their cars "just surviving the warranty period."
This is evidenced by the multitude of warranty extensions placed on items that fail prematurely.
edyvw
$50 site donor 2025
And how that worked for Chrysler, GM? Pontiac? Saturn? Alfa Romeo? SAAB? Etc.
