- Joined
- Dec 16, 2022
- Messages
- 856
No you didn't.
Moly or Boron preference?
- Thread starter ZZman
- Start date
No you didn't.
Clearly you are fact resistant, bye.
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2022
- Messages
- 856
The facts: ASTM D892 allows up to 50 ml of foam. HPL allows 0. Just one fact that proves HPL can exceed oils that all pass the test if they're getting > 0 ml of foam.
False.
Its a standard of testing. It does not approve/allow or deny/decline anything.
And I don't care if HPL can exceed API/ACEA/MB/VW requirements, so can all other oil companys.
Like I just showed you.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2022
- Messages
- 856
This isn't helping your argument so why bother.
The point I was making is that one cannot simply say "all oils that meet standard X perform the same", because even in the standard there is wiggle room, some oils perform better even though they all meet the standard.
Nobody was saying that other companies can't also exceed various standards. Just that you can't judge all oils that pass the standard as equal, because the standard still has room for varying quality as I mentioned with the 0 to 50ml foaming test.
With HPL I'm confident I'm getting the best of the best, and that's what matters to me. If you're happy running Kirkland, knock yourself out, completely not the point.
MolaKule
Staff member
I am fortunate enough to make most of my own oils for my own use.
If I had to buy OTS oils my selection criteria would be: 1) intended use/application and perceived quality, 2) blenders' reputation, 3) price compared to other oils meeting 1 and 2.
Last edited:
But how does one know if it is significant? Sure it is better at foaming but is that significant or relevant? At the license, specification or approval limit is there a tangible benefit to being better?
There is no 0 to 50ml test. ASTM D892 has no limits, its a test with measured result.
And yes with such little knowledge of oil standards I can see why you buy HPL. I probably would too.
Assurance has a high price when you are ignorant.
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2022
- Messages
- 856
A great question for Dave/HPL.
Would you agree that less foam is more likely to be better than more foam? No doubt diminishing returns plays a part, but I'm very attracted to the idea of getting the best I can especially when the cost relative to total ownership is so insignificant.
I'm sure someone buying a $5000 college beater has different views and they wouldn't necessarily be wrong either, but I'm looking at this from my perspective which is buying a brand new $50,000 vehicle (and its probably $65k today) with the goal of running it until it drops.
I have no idea. I guess I’ve never worried about foaming, just never been on my top 20. I care about oxidation resistance and SAPS level as well as HT/HS.
I don’t think I’d agree that less foam is better, no. As long as it meets the approval requirement. But maybe that’s your biggest concern.
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2022
- Messages
- 856
The test is used in standards to reach an acceptable level of foam for that standard. The point is that HPL doesn't accept any foam, which to me is a higher standard/goal.
The price for being 100% confident in my oil choice, based on UOA's and specs and user feedback from respected members on this forum, is like $30.00 twice yearly. The price for being rude and prickly is far higher IMHO.
@hemioiler
Tell me again how the biggest GTL producer has a problem with foaming please.
I'll continue to buy Shell / Pennzoil / QS.
Tell me again how the biggest GTL producer has a problem with foaming please.
I'll continue to buy Shell / Pennzoil / QS.
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2022
- Messages
- 856
@hemioiler
Tell me again how the biggest GTL producer has a problem with foaming please.
I'll continue to buy Shell / Pennzoil / QS.
That's ok, I'll continue to buy HPL
The test is used in standards to reach an acceptable level of foam for that standard. The point is that HPL doesn't accept any foam, which to me is a higher standard/goal.
Congrats your found the basic API and ACEA requirements. Now look up manufacture specs that are more stringent.
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2022
- Messages
- 856
I don't even think you know what the argument is anymore. The point was that even if 2 oils meet the same certification/spec, it doesn't mean that you can just glibbly assume they will perform equally because the specs have wiggle room.
When it comes to "exceeding the specs", well that's why I prefer HPL.
Yes, that's precisely what we can do. Endless UOA's tells us exactly that.
Really? What do you look at on a UOA to gauge oxidation resistance? Or deposit control? Or ring sticking? Turbocharger deposits? Sludge formation?
These are all things that are vitally important. And as user edhackett has explained, a spectrographic analysis isn’t even a good proxy for wear.
Agree, comparing one by one you wont get much(any) usable data.
But look at thousands of them.
If you have deposit problems I would think you are using the wrong oil (spec) for the application or to long OCI.
Oxidation resistance i'm not shure, TAN & TBN?
Isn't noack % oxidation resistance...?
Last edited:
No, I was going by what actual tests are performed for those considerations as part of a manufacturer approval.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
You'd need teardowns to draw any actual conclusions about wear.
Many applications just spec the basic API approval. There have been a few threads on Toyota 0W-16 oil consumption and ring sticking, causing scoring, due to deposits. We've also seen pictures of many engines with deposits run at "reasonable" intervals on basic API and dealer oils.
Nope. Oxidation is tested for in some approvals but may not be adequately captured.
Noack is volatility.
Similar threads
