Lucas 10w30 NOACK off the charts!
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
- Status
ALAS - I have used it as a selling point. My Volvo is a prime example.
Quote:
If what I've read is correct, many street cars don't see 212 degrees (F) oil temp, which is considered to be normal operating temperature.
True from a gage standpoint but certain areas of an engine can get to those temps pretty easy. Think cylinder rings...
They probably load their oil with cheap light fractions and plump up the visc. with VII. Might make getting the cold flow easier without having to buy as much PPD as well. Really bad.
If what I've read is correct, many street cars don't see 212 degrees (F) oil temp, which is considered to be normal operating temperature.
True from a gage standpoint but certain areas of an engine can get to those temps pretty easy. Think cylinder rings...
They probably load their oil with cheap light fractions and plump up the visc. with VII. Might make getting the cold flow easier without having to buy as much PPD as well. Really bad.
Originally Posted By: Onmo'Eegusee
Originally Posted By: brian12
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
http://gf-5.com
Another reduction in zinc and phos. Looks like they are gonna force older cars off the road.
Umm as far as I know, the GF-4 limits stand. Same with NOACK. http://www.gf-5.com/the_story/testing/
It says emission systems durability improvement here, so that makes me think less zinc/phos. http://www.gf-5.com/the_story/performance/
Originally Posted By: brian12
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
http://gf-5.com
Another reduction in zinc and phos. Looks like they are gonna force older cars off the road.
Umm as far as I know, the GF-4 limits stand. Same with NOACK. http://www.gf-5.com/the_story/testing/
It says emission systems durability improvement here, so that makes me think less zinc/phos. http://www.gf-5.com/the_story/performance/
No, they are going to test phos retention. They have not come up with a limit, but the idea is to reduce the amount of phos leaving the oil while not reducing the amount.
Here, if you had bothered to read the very page you linked to. There is more to it than the pretty spider graph.
Quote:
For GF-5, Phosphorous has not been reduced from GF-4 (0.06% wt) due to potential wear concerns. As such, a minimum on Phosphorous content still exists. Additionally, a Phosphorous Retention Test is to be incorporated into GF-5 with the objective of minimizing Phosphorous leaving the engine and entering the After-Treatment Devices (ATD). Previously, only a chemical limit was used.
A Phosphorous Retention Test will measure the amount of Phosphorous retained in the lubricant in the engine using the current Sequence IIIG engine test. Currently, ESCIT recommends to ILSAC using the Sequence IIIG @ 100 hours for this test.
Here, if you had bothered to read the very page you linked to. There is more to it than the pretty spider graph.
Quote:
For GF-5, Phosphorous has not been reduced from GF-4 (0.06% wt) due to potential wear concerns. As such, a minimum on Phosphorous content still exists. Additionally, a Phosphorous Retention Test is to be incorporated into GF-5 with the objective of minimizing Phosphorous leaving the engine and entering the After-Treatment Devices (ATD). Previously, only a chemical limit was used.
A Phosphorous Retention Test will measure the amount of Phosphorous retained in the lubricant in the engine using the current Sequence IIIG engine test. Currently, ESCIT recommends to ILSAC using the Sequence IIIG @ 100 hours for this test.
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: lsxjon
Lucas will evaporate quickly just as Mobil 1 ext will cause rapid wear due to poor four ball wear testing. FWIW, we just got done testing some n/a drag engines and the Lucas 0-20 pro stock oil was worth 8 hp over amsoil dominator 5-20.
As usual, this kind of input is ignored.
Lucas will evaporate quickly just as Mobil 1 ext will cause rapid wear due to poor four ball wear testing. FWIW, we just got done testing some n/a drag engines and the Lucas 0-20 pro stock oil was worth 8 hp over amsoil dominator 5-20.
As usual, this kind of input is ignored.
Originally Posted By: Hethaerto
Originally Posted By: lsxjon
Lucas will evaporate quickly just as Mobil 1 ext will cause rapid wear due to poor four ball wear testing. FWIW, we just got done testing some n/a drag engines and the Lucas 0-20 pro stock oil was worth 8 hp over amsoil dominator 5-20.
As usual, this kind of input is ignored.
Maybe it's the lack of a repeatable test protocol and hard data that causes people to ignore such claims???
Originally Posted By: lsxjon
Lucas will evaporate quickly just as Mobil 1 ext will cause rapid wear due to poor four ball wear testing. FWIW, we just got done testing some n/a drag engines and the Lucas 0-20 pro stock oil was worth 8 hp over amsoil dominator 5-20.
As usual, this kind of input is ignored.
Maybe it's the lack of a repeatable test protocol and hard data that causes people to ignore such claims???
Originally Posted By: lsxjon
Lucas will evaporate quickly just as Mobil 1 ext will cause rapid wear due to poor four ball wear testing. FWIW, we just got done testing some n/a drag engines and the Lucas 0-20 pro stock oil was worth 8 hp over amsoil dominator 5-20.
Sorry but you are wrong. 4-ball wear doesn't mean M1 won't provide good wear protecion.
Lucas will evaporate quickly just as Mobil 1 ext will cause rapid wear due to poor four ball wear testing. FWIW, we just got done testing some n/a drag engines and the Lucas 0-20 pro stock oil was worth 8 hp over amsoil dominator 5-20.
Sorry but you are wrong. 4-ball wear doesn't mean M1 won't provide good wear protecion.
Originally Posted By: lsxjon
Lucas will evaporate quickly just as Mobil 1 ext will cause rapid wear due to poor four ball wear testing. FWIW, we just got done testing some n/a drag engines and the Lucas 0-20 pro stock oil was worth 8 hp over amsoil dominator 5-20.
If the Lucas product did yield more hp, it could be a result of excessive shearing. The Amsoil Dominator oils are extremely shear stable based on the 90 cycle Kurt Orbahn test. They are PAO/POE base oils.
http://www.amsoil.com/storefront/rd20.aspx
Lucas will evaporate quickly just as Mobil 1 ext will cause rapid wear due to poor four ball wear testing. FWIW, we just got done testing some n/a drag engines and the Lucas 0-20 pro stock oil was worth 8 hp over amsoil dominator 5-20.
If the Lucas product did yield more hp, it could be a result of excessive shearing. The Amsoil Dominator oils are extremely shear stable based on the 90 cycle Kurt Orbahn test. They are PAO/POE base oils.
http://www.amsoil.com/storefront/rd20.aspx
Wow, dragster oil is just what my Honda needs.
I call ABSOLUTE BULL on that test.
In the mid-1970's, dino 10W-40's had a NOAK loss in the 25-27% range.
Don't tell me that a 2008 synthetic, EVEN if it is poor quality, has a loss of 40%. It just wouldn't happen.
This is a load, this test, and a real low stoop for Amsoil - they should KNOW that these results aren't right - they were there in the 1970s!
In the mid-1970's, dino 10W-40's had a NOAK loss in the 25-27% range.
Don't tell me that a 2008 synthetic, EVEN if it is poor quality, has a loss of 40%. It just wouldn't happen.
This is a load, this test, and a real low stoop for Amsoil - they should KNOW that these results aren't right - they were there in the 1970s!
Originally Posted By: buster
I'm not sure how it's possible for GTX, a grp II+ at best, to have a NOACK that low.
So does that mean GTX is a better dino oil than Pennzoil YB???
I was a Castrol fan until I hit this site and became convinced that Pennzoil was the good stuff?
I'm not sure how it's possible for GTX, a grp II+ at best, to have a NOACK that low.
So does that mean GTX is a better dino oil than Pennzoil YB???
I was a Castrol fan until I hit this site and became convinced that Pennzoil was the good stuff?
Originally Posted By: FastSUV
Originally Posted By: buster
I'm not sure how it's possible for GTX, a grp II+ at best, to have a NOACK that low.
So does that mean GTX is a better dino oil than Pennzoil YB???
I was a Castrol fan until I hit this site and became convinced that Pennzoil was the good stuff?
I think GTX is at least as good as Pennzoil YB. It actually performs better in a lot of tests.
Originally Posted By: buster
I'm not sure how it's possible for GTX, a grp II+ at best, to have a NOACK that low.
So does that mean GTX is a better dino oil than Pennzoil YB???
I was a Castrol fan until I hit this site and became convinced that Pennzoil was the good stuff?
I think GTX is at least as good as Pennzoil YB. It actually performs better in a lot of tests.
Originally Posted By: buster
I think it's a bad sample or lab error. I'm confident it had to be a bad batch or something. No oil has a NOACK that high.
Actually I dug into this deeper:
Let me state a few facts.
1) Last time Amsoil checked NOACK on Lucas 10W-30 in the 2003-2005 time frame, they got numbers in the 30% range. This was a store bought sample back then.
2) This go around, they sent a new (store purchased) oil sample to an independent lab. 40.47%
3) Amsoil asked the lab to repeat the test, very close to the same number. ~40%
4) Amsoil ran the test themselves on the sample and got near 50%!
5) Amsoil's reckoning is that some of the baseoil itself has a quite low b.p.
6) Lucas has not challenged this finding, but is aware of it.
7) Amsoil knows of other oils which have fairly high NOACK %'s ~ and figures the companies know the test temp is still lower the typical oil in use mean temperature.
I think it's a bad sample or lab error. I'm confident it had to be a bad batch or something. No oil has a NOACK that high.
Actually I dug into this deeper:
Let me state a few facts.
1) Last time Amsoil checked NOACK on Lucas 10W-30 in the 2003-2005 time frame, they got numbers in the 30% range. This was a store bought sample back then.
2) This go around, they sent a new (store purchased) oil sample to an independent lab. 40.47%
3) Amsoil asked the lab to repeat the test, very close to the same number. ~40%
4) Amsoil ran the test themselves on the sample and got near 50%!
5) Amsoil's reckoning is that some of the baseoil itself has a quite low b.p.
6) Lucas has not challenged this finding, but is aware of it.
7) Amsoil knows of other oils which have fairly high NOACK %'s ~ and figures the companies know the test temp is still lower the typical oil in use mean temperature.
- Status
Similar threads
