Here is the HPL NO VII 10w20 “euro” VOA. Looks real good
Last edited by a moderator:
HPL NO VII 10w-20 “EURO” VOA
- Thread starter 53' Stude
- Start date
I thought the HPL Euro had a lot of boron? I can't keep up with HPL VOA's they seem to be all over the place. SA is extremely high with this oil. Looks like an oil from 1985.
This is their Euro 5w30, VW 504/507, Porsche C30, ACEA C3, API SN, BMW LL-04, MB 229.51 offering.
The lab has this labeled wrong, the first time they had it listed as supposed to be a 5w20 even though I clearly labeled everything.
I was a little surprised at the moly, but I don't know what's normally reasonable for these specs. I did ask to retest because most HPL products have a good dose of moly. Strong TBN, thick 30.
The lab has this labeled wrong, the first time they had it listed as supposed to be a 5w20 even though I clearly labeled everything.
I was a little surprised at the moly, but I don't know what's normally reasonable for these specs. I did ask to retest because most HPL products have a good dose of moly. Strong TBN, thick 30.
Last edited:
I was thinking the same. IIRC, the boron dropped off from the M1 0w40 when they went to SP. Must be part of the package change. I guess they found a blend that would work without some of those mfa's for all the 40 cold start tests.I thought the HPL Euro had a lot of boron? I can't keep up with HPL VOA's they seem to be all over the place. SA is extremely high with this oil. Looks like an oil from 1985.
This is their Euro 5w30, VW 504/507, Porsche C30, ACEA C3, API SN, BMW LL-04, MB 229.51 offering.
The lab has this labeled wrong, the first time they had it listed as supposed to be a 5w20 even though I clearly labeled everything.
I was a little surprised at the moly, but I don't know what's normally reasonable for these specs. I did ask to retest because most HPL products have a good dose of moly. Strong TBN, thick 30.
Gracias.
Very nice!
Thank You for making the database my friend.
With that much calcium is there an LSPI risk for a newer TGDI car?
The moly, ester, mg should counter the Ca and help mitigate LSPI.
Lingenfelter said Amsoil SS had noticeably improvements with LSPI compared to the oils they tested. Thought that was interesting. Didn't think LSPI was that common in those larger displacement engines.
For the HPL No-VII in the original post with the 3,000 ppm Ca, yes, there would be a high risk of LSPI.
The HPL Euro with 1740 ppm Ca may have enough moly and ZDDP for decent LSPI performance, but no amount of these additives will compensate for the 3000 ppm calcium in the HPL No-VII.
Magnesium has no effect on LSPI (unless it's replacing calcium). Esters tend to have little to no effect, and may actually increase LSPI risk slightly.
The other no-VII Euro VOAs don't show quite as much calcium. I'm wondering if this is a lab anomaly or if HPL just found that the tight spread (10w20 is about as tight as it gets) enables higher dosing rates to be effective.
Doing more reading on this, I'm thinking the LSPI aspect is a non-issue for me as someone running 93 octane in a TGDI car that calls only for 87.
10w20 is back on the menu.
Ugh, so I'm looking at PCMO then. I don't think I can run the 3000 ppm Calcium of Euro formula in my car.
I think the Euro is gtg in my non TGDI engines-- my old J35 will probably like it, as will my 1UR-fe which seems happy with anything of good quality. (currently getting HPL 5w30 pcmo.)
I think the Euro is gtg in my non TGDI engines-- my old J35 will probably like it, as will my 1UR-fe which seems happy with anything of good quality. (currently getting HPL 5w30 pcmo.)
Late to the party on this...
Hohn, why run 93 when it calls for 87? Slowing down the combustion process with higher octane does lead to exhaust valve deposits down the road. It produces less power as well typically, as the flame front isn't optimized for what the car is designed for.
Hohn, why run 93 when it calls for 87? Slowing down the combustion process with higher octane does lead to exhaust valve deposits down the road. It produces less power as well typically, as the flame front isn't optimized for what the car is designed for.
As am I late in replying.
93 octane doesn't have slower combustion, once ignited. It just has more resistance to autoignition-- a higher activation energy is required.
That said, my main reason to run Shell premium right now is antiwear and detergency and has nothing really to do with octane.
