I agree...also....vs. others who choose to use regular (non boutique) synthetics.
HPL 0w-20 ... More money than sense...
- Thread starter 0W-16
- Start date
Truck and van both see about 12-12.5k miles a year, so likely not even pushing the HPL in the truck since that’s primarily me driving to and from work. The van is right on the very edge of being short tripped most of the time, but should be okay with HPL once a year. Will verify with UOA to make sure it’s not building up moisture/fuel or anything else bad that we can see in a UOA.
Please let us know what about HPL oil impressed you enough to want to use it.
I would love for information like that to be mentioned in a car review. Every review I have ever seen focuses on the 'newness' factor instead of longevity and ease of service.
Due to contaminants, 1-yr is generally a good point for change out. It is a widely accepted industry standard by OEM's. I suppose you can push the envelope by doing an UOA, but that adds cost.
I didn’t say go over 1 year. He’s got 16 quarts for two vehicles, I assumed there were some of the 4-quart variety and he was changing twice. That’s why I asked for mileage clarification, since 8qt sumps are less common than 4qt from what I’ve seen (although I’m not searching them out).
If you had checked his signature....I didn’t say go over 1 year. He’s got 16 quarts for two vehicles, I assumed there were some of the 4-quart variety and he was changing twice. That’s why I asked for mileage clarification, since 8qt sumps are less common than 4qt from what I’ve seen (although I’m not searching them out).
D
Deleted member 89374
I have a neighbor with a 20-year-old Escalade in his fleet that's got nearly half a million miles on the odometer with the original engine, on his second transmission. This guy never spends money on any expensive motor oil, and usually buys what he can find on sale, and sometimes runs quite extended OCIs. He's got a Chevy Suburban with "only" 175K on the clock that I managed to get him to run Mobil 1 EP 0W-20 in it after I saw varnish under the oil cap. The M1 EP did a nice job cleaning it up so I moved him to Mobil 1 FS 0W-40 because he's got an oil leak, so that at least (hopefully) he looses oil at a slower rate until he gets it fixed.
It's unbelievable how much R&D and testing goes into some of these oils, like the M1 EP "Triple Action Formula". Unless the oil needs to do something that off the shelf oils can't do (highly modified or racing engine, fleet with extremely long OCI needs / rough conditions, etc.), API-licensed motor oils are more than capable of keeping any glorified grocery-getter-commuter-car's engine clean and running well.
Can’t see sigs on iOSIf you had checked his signature....
Absolutely.
"If an oil doesn't meet its specs, this means that blending quality is horrible." Or maybe not, there are many more places along the path for things to go astray than the blend kettle.
Compounder-blenders are likely to have a very generic formulation that is 2-3 generations behind the majors, their exhorbitant claims notwithstanding. I've seen tearaparts of some pretty high-profile compounder-blender synthetics that were just sad. These guys are buying an adpak from Lubrizol or Infineum and blending it with basestock, usually from ExxonMobil, since that's the company with the most spare basestock capacity. Many of their "specs" beyond the physical properties are read across from the adpak & the basestock specs. In other words, they've never run many of the tests they quote on their actual completed blends, or even on a lab blend. I've seen plenty of oils represented as "GF-4" whose names are suspiciously absent from the ILSAC web page. Blend quality in this market segment is likely to be all over the map.
The majors are typically going to give you a state-of-the-art formulation. Even if LZ or INF produces their adpak, it's likely to be a custom job developed in concert between the two companies and frequently sold exclusively to the major in question. (Once they develop the next generation, you'll frequently find these now-out-of-fashion adpaks in the compounder-blenders' products.) Their problems may be in the blend kettle, but the gremlins are much more likely to creep into their heavily distributor-dependent supply chains."
That's just based on tearaparts I've seen, from a group of some very talented chemists playing with some very fancy toys. "Synthetic" can be about as useful a term with oil as "organic" is with food. Plastic-related materials (as in high levels of VI improver, PIB & diester) are synthetic, but there are better things to put in your lubricants these days. (But those better components, specifically high-vis PAOs and non-ester cosolvents, cut into the bottom line, you know.)
Any supplier touting one specific additive might very well be using that as sleight of hand to distract you from thinking about the rest of a fairly pedestrian formulation.
The same goes for touting one property. "We have 8 ZILLION times better wear protection than Brand X (and those deposits all over the place, uh, they give you extra rust protection, yeah, that's the ticket.)"
Think of a lube formulation as a partly filled balloon. If you squeeze it one place, it's going to bulge out somewhere else. You can also think of an additive like a drug, it's got beneficial properties and side effects. If you push too hard on one property, it's going to hurt you somewhere else. Better suppliers will try to give you a comprehensive formulation that gives the best possible overall performance the current technology can provide."
From an XOM engineer years back.
Compounder-blenders are likely to have a very generic formulation that is 2-3 generations behind the majors, their exhorbitant claims notwithstanding. I've seen tearaparts of some pretty high-profile compounder-blender synthetics that were just sad. These guys are buying an adpak from Lubrizol or Infineum and blending it with basestock, usually from ExxonMobil, since that's the company with the most spare basestock capacity. Many of their "specs" beyond the physical properties are read across from the adpak & the basestock specs. In other words, they've never run many of the tests they quote on their actual completed blends, or even on a lab blend. I've seen plenty of oils represented as "GF-4" whose names are suspiciously absent from the ILSAC web page. Blend quality in this market segment is likely to be all over the map.
The majors are typically going to give you a state-of-the-art formulation. Even if LZ or INF produces their adpak, it's likely to be a custom job developed in concert between the two companies and frequently sold exclusively to the major in question. (Once they develop the next generation, you'll frequently find these now-out-of-fashion adpaks in the compounder-blenders' products.) Their problems may be in the blend kettle, but the gremlins are much more likely to creep into their heavily distributor-dependent supply chains."
That's just based on tearaparts I've seen, from a group of some very talented chemists playing with some very fancy toys. "Synthetic" can be about as useful a term with oil as "organic" is with food. Plastic-related materials (as in high levels of VI improver, PIB & diester) are synthetic, but there are better things to put in your lubricants these days. (But those better components, specifically high-vis PAOs and non-ester cosolvents, cut into the bottom line, you know.)
Any supplier touting one specific additive might very well be using that as sleight of hand to distract you from thinking about the rest of a fairly pedestrian formulation.
The same goes for touting one property. "We have 8 ZILLION times better wear protection than Brand X (and those deposits all over the place, uh, they give you extra rust protection, yeah, that's the ticket.)"
Think of a lube formulation as a partly filled balloon. If you squeeze it one place, it's going to bulge out somewhere else. You can also think of an additive like a drug, it's got beneficial properties and side effects. If you push too hard on one property, it's going to hurt you somewhere else. Better suppliers will try to give you a comprehensive formulation that gives the best possible overall performance the current technology can provide."
From an XOM engineer years back.
D
Deleted member 89374
I will triple check, however, I believe I read that Mobil 1 "Triple Action Formula" uses around 20% ANs in their formulation. That, and a lot of other chemicals that are not easily or at all available to boutique blenders. The focus of this new formulation was to create a better tribological film for improved wear protection.
i have half a million km Toyota run on random A3/b4 oils from Shell/Mobil/Castrol.
Any A3/B4 oil is far superior to any other oil for passenger cars (even HPL's lower HTHS rated oils).
You mentioned: I want the best and can easily afford it.
Any 0W-20 oil is limited by it's low HTHS, so even the best 0W-20 will only provide adequate protection.
If you want the best protection, you may want to use a 5W-30 like Mobil 1 5W-30 ESP which has HTHS = 3.5, and it passes the really tough European oil tests for wear protection, engine cleanliness, etc.
Crap… can’t use the Mobil 1 EP 10w30 case I bought in my Subaru as planned if it’s loaded with ANs… it’ll eat away all the collected crud that’s sealing my oil return ports in the HGs and it will leak like a sieve.
Anybody want to buy a case? PM me lol
D
Deleted member 89374
I doubt that you'll have any issues.
Let's say I'm wrong, which is also a possibility: would you really want to rely on "dirt" to keep the oil in in critical places, like the real main seal?
I never had an overly dirty engine in a vehicle. I purchased some used vehicles over the years, but it was nothing in there that a few oil changes with Mobil 1 or a HDEO didn't clean up. In those engines I had water pumps and timing belts that needed replacement (and other things), but never had any of them leak. And some of them were "real gems", like a 1997 Mitsubishi Galant with a gutless 2.4L engine and 3 speed /w overdrive automatic, probably imported straight from the Soviet Union.
I was likely over-exaggerating some when I said “crud” because I do use good oils and filters in it. It’s had Chevron Delo XLE 10w30 in it on 5k intervals for the past 2+ years, and XG3593As.
What I was referring to is it’s got the original HGs in it with 184k, and while the coolant side is holding fine (I use Subaru Coolant Conditioner as directed), the oil return passages weep a little out of the bottom of the heads. And I mean just barely; never have to add any oil over an OCI but I get a faint burning smell and can see moist spots on the bottom of the heads where the oil drips. Rear main seal is fine.
I’m concerned that a good dose of ANs and/or esters would likely further degrade the known terrible coating on the factory HGs. Not really wanting to take any chances and have to put HGs in it; trying to make it to 200k as a personal badge of honor, lol.
D
Deleted member 89374
Well, Castrol GTX should perform well for you then.
Similar threads
