How's that 2.7 in your Edge liking the Valvoline Advanced?
Made the "switch" from M1 to Valvoline Synthetics
- Thread starter 1 SX
- Start date
How's that 2.7 in your Edge liking the Valvoline Advanced?
I really enjoy the Valvoline anti glug oil jugs. My Regal seems to love the 5w30 Valvoline. I switched back to Mobil 1 for the last oil change because it was on sale after running 2 oil changes of Valvoline. The Mobil 1 causes the engine to be so much louder at startup. I'll probably only run Valvoline in this car for the foreseeable future.
What other elements or components in the oil that are not shown in a VOA are important and should be considered, and make a difference in choosing an oil?
Last edited:
My Tacoma sounds quieter on Valvoline Advanced then it did on Mobil 1 ... both in 5W-30.
Valvoline is very good oil, I will agree it's quieter than M1. So far Pennzoil Platinum Euro is quieter than both. If it weren't regularly $40-$50 a jug I'd love to try their 0w40. Specs on paper are very good.
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Not sure they make a difference in choosing an oil, the point was that a VOA isn't going to tell you about things the blender has chosen to use that aren't metallic, which, in recent years, has increased.
This includes anything organic for starters. Mobil started using organic FM's quite a while ago when ZDDP levels were reduced. But of course base oil composition doesn't show up either, so you have no idea if they are using PAO, AN's, Esters...etc.
This presentation from Infineum goes into it a bit, if you look at page 17 it talks about ashless (metal-free) dispersants, page 28 shows organic FM's.
https://www.infineuminsight.com/media/1802/7-additive-components-v4a.pdf
It still is in wife's manual for 2022 Hyundai Tucson Limited.
- Joined
- May 28, 2014
- Messages
- 2,515
I haven't been impressed with Mobil 1 oils for years. When they were messing around with the formulas around Katrina hurricane time period, I jumped ship.
Anti-friction and anti-wear additives aren't the same thing, and both have their own function. I'm more interested in the anti-wear package vs the anti-friction package. The article you linked (good info BTW) talks about organic friction modifiers, but doesn't address organic anti-wear modifiers. Are there actually any organic anti-wear additives that are more important than the AW additives seen in a VOA?
https://www.stle.org/files/TLTArchives/2018/12_December/Webinars.aspx
From the link above:
You would be correct.
I think it’s his choice to use whatever he wants. Just saying
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
I know, but there's some overlap with some of these components/compounds. @MolaKule posted on it somewhat recently, I'll quote him below.
I'm interested in all aspects of the formulation. My original point was, circling back, that these are not showing up on VOA's, which only shows us metallic additives.
Circling back to what I said above regarding the overlap with these compounds, when asked about what's in AFE:
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/m1-ep-vs-m1-afe.342316/page-2#post-5830101
MolaKule said:
Which brings us to this post from him:
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/a-review-of-engine-oil-additives.318101/#post-5457946
Which states, under anti-wear:
Note the emphasis, which aligns with the compounds suspected to be used by XOM.
Does that help?
Yes, it helps, thanks ... and yes there is overlap and maybe some components in oil formulation that won't show up on a VOA. But how much do these unknown/unseen AF/AW components in the formulation matter compared to the components that are shown in a VOA? I'm thinking nobody can accurately discern that.
But does that absolutely mean looking at a VOA is of zero value when comparing oils? Guess that's what I'm getting at. Since most VOAs break down the same components, I'd think there is still some value in comparing them.
Last edited:
Valvoline full synthetic runs nice and quiet in my mothers GMC Terrain 2.4. If the price stays the same it MAY be my go to for that engine. I have heard a lot of chatter on this forum about Mobil 1 being "louder" in many applications, I have not found that to be the case in the Honda's that I have used it in. Maybe it is application specific.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Well, I'd argue they matter or the companies wouldn't be including them
Mobil feels they add value and appear to both compensate for reduced ZDDP as well as reducing friction. Those are both important roles, particularly in the context of the API approvals which limit certain metallic additive concentrations. The thing is that metallic additive levels are going to be similar for oils in the same category, because they all are held to the same limits. There are also only a few additive manufacturers and quite a few cookie cutter additive packages. If you look at API SP 0w-20's for example, you might see different levels of moly (but have no idea if its dimer or trimer, though with Mobil it's almost assuredly trimer) but many of the other metallic additives are going to be similar enough to be within the fudge factor for spectrographic analysis due to constraints on flexibility in formulation, or close enough that it won't really matter.
That brings us to what we can't see, which are these other components/compounds that affect the oils performance but we don't know they are there or what they are via VOA or UOA. In terms of performance, like with base oil selection, a blender or oil company going to extra lengths to utilize these materials because they do in fact make a difference means they can't be discounted, but the fact that they don't show up in a VOA means that in these "armchair shootouts" they aren't being factored in. That's my point here.
When comparing products that are far more similar than they are different, due to the common pool of approvals they are approved against, its the stuff that we can't see that likely makes the difference in testing (otherwise, why go to the lengths and expense to use them...). It's like looking at two E39's from 200 yards away. You can't see the tiny boot lip or the different mirrors to know that ones a 528i and the other an M5, but both of them will get you to Walmart. That's what I think of when we are looking at M1 EP 0w-20 vs Supertech for example or even Mobil Full Synthetic, one is clearly far less of a compromise than the others even though they have the same approvals.
Of course then this brings us to whether overkill is beneficial. Well, we are already splitting hairs trying to compare oils with the same grade and same approvals. An oil that's formulated to be "better" I'm sure has some tangible benefit, even if it's just keeping things a little big cleaner, or reducing wear a little bit more. This might only be measurable in controlled testing, but it exists and if that's the goal then yeah, I'd say it could be "beneficial" in terms of the quest at hand, even if it is wholly irrelevant in terms of the useful lifespan of the equipment.
twouvakind
Site Donor 2025
Lowes had Valvoline FS for $23 minus a $5 PayPal rebate the day before yesterday.
^^^ All of your post #76 makes sense and I tend to agree. So guess that kind of leads to "trusting" the advertising the oil companies do with terms like "Reduces wear by xx%" or "Cleans pistons x times better than the industry standard" type of statements since they are most likely based on special tests to make such claims.
Now you've just described the similar kind of "hair splitting" when it comes to oil filter efficiency, oil cleanliness and engine wear, but now for oil ... just don't talk about them both in the same thread or forum !!
It probably is. M1EPHM 5w30 was pretty quiet in my car. Castrol Edge is always noisy, Euro or SP. I don't really think it means much. I'm probably going to stick with M1 5w50 & 15w50 spring and summer and Pennzoil Platinum Euro 0w40 winter once my stash is depleted. Despite not being as good as M1 FS 0w40 on paper I've had extremely fast, quiet cold starts with the Pennzoil at single digits, better than the M1 and I think the Pennzoil is a tad thicker so it's a win win.
I'd like to think it will matter when I get to 300k+ or even 500k+. If I just put Super tech 5w20 in my car, change it every 7500 miles and the engine fails due to wear or windows the block (as Hyundai's are so fond of doing when they've decided to retire) I will always question whether or not a thicker, higher quality oil would have done a better job. Whatever I'm doing now is clearly working because I keep piling on the miles and the engine runs like it's brand new, actually it runs better than new, likely due to being well broken in.Well, I'd argue they matter or the companies wouldn't be including them
The thing is that metallic additive levels are going to be similar for oils in the same category, because they all are held to the same limits. There are also only a few additive manufacturers and quite a few cookie cutter additive packages. If you look at API SP 0w-20's for example, you might see different levels of moly (but have no idea if its dimer or trimer, though with Mobil it's almost assuredly trimer) but many of the other metallic additives are going to be similar enough to be within the fudge factor for spectrographic analysis due to constraints on flexibility in formulation, or close enough that it won't really matter.
That brings us to what we can't see, which are these other components/compounds that affect the oils performance but we don't know they are there or what they are via VOA or UOA. In terms of performance, like with base oil selection, a blender or oil company going to extra lengths to utilize these materials because they do in fact make a difference means they can't be discounted, but the fact that they don't show up in a VOA means that in these "armchair shootouts" they aren't being factored in. That's my point here.
When comparing products that are far more similar than they are different, due to the common pool of approvals they are approved against, its the stuff that we can't see that likely makes the difference in testing (otherwise, why go to the lengths and expense to use them...). It's like looking at two E39's from 200 yards away. You can't see the tiny boot lip or the different mirrors to know that ones a 528i and the other an M5, but both of them will get you to Walmart. That's what I think of when we are looking at M1 EP 0w-20 vs Supertech for example or even Mobil Full Synthetic, one is clearly far less of a compromise than the others even though they have the same approvals.
Of course then this brings us to whether overkill is beneficial. Well, we are already splitting hairs trying to compare oils with the same grade and same approvals. An oil that's formulated to be "better" I'm sure has some tangible benefit, even if it's just keeping things a little big cleaner, or reducing wear a little bit more. This might only be measurable in controlled testing, but it exists and if that's the goal then yeah, I'd say it could be "beneficial" in terms of the quest at hand, even if it is wholly irrelevant in terms of the useful lifespan of the equipment.
