Is engine cleanness being overblown?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Considering how good modern synthetics already were, regarding cleanliness, I've always considered the PU "factory clean" whoopla to be pure, unadulterated marketing hype. Whatever other virtues that oil might have, the factory clean bit does not impress me.

Shell, don't try to wow me with pictures of sparkling clean pistons. Show me what a test engine's wear numbers look like at 400,000 miles.
 
Originally Posted By: SOHCman
Are you saying that a HDEO will be good (better) for engine cleanliness? More so than the wizbang syns?


I couldn't answer that with 100% certainty and for all applications, but all things considered, I'd have to say yes. If you're wanting to do a 3-5000 mi OCI and wanting to do some cleaning, a conventional HDEO would be the route I'd take.

After all, the diesel specs require a lot more robustness in the way of detergents and dispersants than do SM requirements. Your "ordinary" gasoline engine synthetics do not meet diesel specs for a reason. A medium to heavy duty diesel engine will load up the oil with soot and so forth a lot quicker than a gasoline engine will.

A year of running Delvac 15w40 is what cleaned my old Ford 300 out after the previous owner erroneously thought oil should be left in indefinitely. No synthetics, and the guy who took it apart said he could eat off the oil pan while mechanically many other things were absolutely toast (broken rings, upside down rings, excessive crankshaft play).

I just did 3,000 mile OCIs to clean it, conventional HDEO, OEM filter. Synthetic would have been a waste of good money and good oil. I saved the Mobil 1 for my turbo car in winter and used the Delvac to degunkify the truck engine.
 
Originally Posted By: ZZman
Plus a mere look thru the oil filler hole does not give a true indication of overall engine cleanliness.


No, but a mess there does bug me. Perhaps I should take my toothbrush out to the garage.
wink.gif


Originally Posted By: sbergman27
Considering how good modern synthetics already were, regarding cleanliness, I've always considered the PU "factory clean" whoopla to be pure, unadulterated marketing hype. Whatever other virtues that oil might have, the factory clean bit does not impress me.


Quite right. Considering the synthetics don't tend to coke or sludge on their own, assuming the engine isn't a sludge master to begin with or someone's not abusing the engine or oil to [censored] and back, there shouldn't be a problem in the first place. How much cleaner can it get? Perhaps they should talk about 99.9% germ killing power next.
 
Yes, engine cleanliness is being overblown.

Anyone who has disassembled an engine that had a semi-decent maintenance schedule even with the most basic PCMO knows this.

The only engine i've seen sludge in was a 400m in a 1978 f150 that hadn't had an oil change in over 6 years, I know this because this was my fathers truck.
 
I owned my previous vehicle for 15 years (and it was six years old when I got it). I focused on extremely long OCIs (up to 25k miles/1yr using Amsoil and then a bit less using M1). I ended up heavily (thick) varnished, smoking at startup, and consuming oil. Would focusing on clean in the early years have saved me this trouble, perhaps yes.

If you're a short timer with your vehicles, then it's probably not an issue.
 
With Pennzoil Conventional (at least at Walmart in the new 5W30 jugs) being in the "up to 40% cleaning" class, I don't see what PP or Ultra is really getting me.

If all Pennzoil conventional go to 40%, I don't see a compelling marketing reason to even get PP IF the differentiator is cleaning ability.
 
The piston photo of Ultra after being run through the Seq IIIG is impressive. Very clean.
 
I'll throw my .02 in. My belief is that cooling system problems take down the majority of engines. Low coolant, electric fans inop, etc. One episode of overheating will cause more grief than sludged innards. Timing belts are WAY more neglected than oil, and can cause more damage. Most owners (non BITOG) dont know the change interval, or even if the car has one. It makes me feel good to use 5K OCIs, but I'm betting my 200K mile 3.8GM dies from something not connected to oil or sludge. Then I'll post on Bob is the Headgasket Guy :-)
 
Originally Posted By: buster
It really depends on the engine. Ultra/M1 etc. are really for high performance engines, or people that drive very hard and see high rpms.

Most engines don't need these types of oils, so you are correct in that your basic SM/SN oil is all one needs.


I don't often run at/past redline but, I want to feel ok about it if If/when I do.

You want a good oil in there even if you only do it once i believe.
 
Originally Posted By: mozart
With Pennzoil Conventional (at least at Walmart in the new 5W30 jugs) being in the "up to 40% cleaning" class, I don't see what PP or Ultra is really getting me.

If all Pennzoil conventional go to 40%, I don't see a compelling marketing reason to even get PP IF the differentiator is cleaning ability.


I think you can rest assured that the difference between a conventional and a synthetic is not just cleaning ability.
 
Originally Posted By: suspiciousmind
I don't often run at/past redline but, I want to feel ok about it if If/when I do.

You want a good oil in there even if you only do it once i believe.

Any engine will be made to hit redline once in a blue moon, even with the normal oil. If the normal oil is conventional, then it should be safe to assume that spending a few seconds near redline isn't going to do anything to the oil that a good conventional can't take.

Now, if you redline it regularly, or drive hard in general, that's a different story. But the redline isn't the point at which your engine will somehow instantly blow up. If it were, the manufacturer probably wouldn't have set it that high.
wink.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Steve S
For the consumer, yes. It is marketing at its best . What is in the oils that isn't in the other oils ?

Evidently, something.

You're insinuating that Pennzoil is lying. Are you prepared to stand by that insinuation?
 
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: Steve S
For the consumer, yes. It is marketing at its best . What is in the oils that isn't in the other oils ?

Evidently, something.

You're insinuating that Pennzoil is lying. Are you prepared to stand by that insinuation?
How come there are many many engines going 300,000 miles + 0n the cheapest oils changed at reasonable intervals? Look at the used oil analysis and voas to see what is in the oil and remember there are only a hand full of companies that make additive packages. I have spent 23.5 years doing fleet type work and have witnessed the insides of enough engines. My knowledge is beyond reading internet articles. Pennzoil isn't lying . Pennzoil is marketing .
 
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Originally Posted By: dsmith41
Especially with the release of Pennzoil Ultra and the SN/GN-5 specs, it seems engine cleanness is being pushed pretty hard. But I am wondering how much it really matters.

In the picture of the two pistons that Pennzoil shows in all their Ultra advertisements, the piston representing Ultra just seems to have a little less varnish than the piston representing Platinum. Is a little varnish really going to hurt anything? As long as there is no sludge or solids in the engine, how is it really going to matter?

If I had to pick a favorite brand, I guess it would be SOPUS but if you haven't figured it out, I am not sold on Ultra. Why pay so much for a new oil when the old Platinum is still a great performing lubricant that keeps things quite clean as well?


I agree.

The diminishing return thing.
 
Cleanliness is a great thing. Arguing that varnish is good because it increases engine temperature leading to lower emissions is a stretch, at best.

Rings that aren't sticky, good oil flow through even the tiniest oil channels, tick-free lifters, properly operating variable valve timing systems, efficient heat transfer where such heat transfer is supposed to exist, properly conditioned seals without crusty coatings and lack of hot spots due to unplanned insulation are all great things to have.

Does not having them mean that your engine will explode? Of course not. But there's a difference between "still on the road" and "still like new". Although far from new, I drive a 'sporting brand' (BMW) and I drive it in a style consistent with its design heritage. For all of my cars I endeavour to keep them as "like new" as possible, for as long as possible, while still financially feasible. I'm not rich and there are certain financial realities limiting how far this "like new" thing can go as the car ages. Doing all my own work enables me to go to farther extents than some with the cost savings - this includes suspension, bushings, interior gear, detailing and power train. (as an aside I see people claiming to have 250k mi on their cars only changed batteries, brakes and a starter and have 'no issues at all' - highly, highly unlikely. Hard things get soft, soft things get hard, and they all wear out. Different topic though.)

I strive for a higher standard than simply passing emissions or safety inspections and staying on the road. It's partially a hobby, partially pride of ownership, and partially because I push the car from time to time. It stands to reason that cleanliness is of value to me. I don't like unnecessary noises or harshness and I value maintaining original performance, emissions compliance and fuel economy as the years and miles go by.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Steve S
How come there are many many engines going 300,000 miles + 0n the cheapest oils changed at reasonable intervals? Look at the used oil analysis and voas to see what is in the oil and remember there are only a hand full of companies that make additive packages. I have spent 23.5 years doing fleet type work and have witnessed the insides of enough engines. My knowledge is beyond reading internet articles.

I won't dispute any of that for a second.

What you are saying is that the old oils were "good enough". That's totally fine to say. It doesn't acknowledge changing and emerging technologies and constraints that will put different stresses on the oil, nor does it mean there is no room for improvement. Thus, it doesn't bear on the question of whether Pennzoil's cleanliness claims are valid.


Originally Posted By: Steve S
Pennzoil isn't lying . Pennzoil is marketing .

Do you know what the difference is?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom