So don't run basic weak sauce API/ACEA oils... ?
Moly or Boron preference?
- Thread starter ZZman
- Start date
So don't run basic weak sauce API/ACEA oils... ?
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Ferrari isn't using Brotella as the factory fill though, lol.Ahh yes Shell oil that is factory filled in every Ferrari including the high revving ones has lots of problem with aeration.
And works with BMW motorsports team, Hyundai WRC-team etc etc.
I think you mean much higher priced oil
or can you give us the source with more info?
The oil that was tested was Rotella.
(6) LSjr Tests VOA of 20 yr old Valvoline & 40 yr old Mobil 1 Oil. HPL tests Anti-Foam in Gear Oil. | Page 4 | Bob Is The Oil Guy
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Yeah, basically. But even with the OE approvals, I find the Euro ones to be much more stringent.
Yeah I would have preferred all the data too.
But most of us know vehicles that have gone beyond 300 thousand miles without any premium oils at all.
My preference is whatever the testing shows. Different variants of those additives synergize differently, sometimes clashing. I know of at least one add pack (Euro) that gives a negative response (friction coefficient increases) with moly-based top treatment due to clash with a different boron additive.
This is a big reason why I don't ever recommend using oil supplements. It's not a good idea to play backyard shadetree chemist.
This is a big reason why I don't ever recommend using oil supplements. It's not a good idea to play backyard shadetree chemist.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Yep, but how healthy are they based on a leakdown and compression test when compared to one that was? That's the real question. For Joe Average that likely doesn't matter, and that's what the OE OCI specs and OE lubricant requirements are predicated on. If you want factory spec compression and leakdown results, there's merit for using a better lube.
Doug Hillary, who used to post here regularly, did fleet testing of Delvac 1 5W-40 for XOM. Testing was performed using a fleet of OTR trucks with 500HP DD's pulling trains through the Aussie outback. He used UOA's to dictate the OCI and his condemnation point for iron was around 150ppm.
Random teardowns were performed. He posted the pics of bearings and liners from a rig with 1.2 million km on it where everything still measured "as new".
But you are still telling me we can draw no conclusions/tendencies from UOA's from different oils that all have less then ~40ppm Fe ?
Like the Blackstone article from 2017. I mean sure seems like there is two sides of that argument to me.
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
If you saw 150ppm of Fe on a UOA, would you assume that engine had high wear?
The purpose of a UOA is to inform the health of the lubricant and its suitability for continued service by providing data on various types of contamination as well as the level of base left in the oil and the amount of acid accumulated (TBN/TAN). The tool is not designed, nor does it have the resolution, to compare actual wear performance between different lubricants. The range of particle sizes is too small and it cannot ascertain whether what it detects is from chelation, corrosion or actual mechanical wear. It is also blind to larger wear particles.
Not without a point of reference and a large data set. Miles per ppm need to be considered for.
Your saying its just coincidence/circumstance (of the testmetod?) that all the oils have comparatively similar Fe ppm's.
And not that they all protect the engine adequately?
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
They all show similar Fe ppm because there's nothing unusual going on with the engine. The only time you will see considerable deviation is if something mechanical is going sideways and even then, not always.
I'm saying if one oil shows you 2ppm per 1,000 miles and another gives you 3ppm per 1,000 miles that without a teardown you can't conclude that the 3ppm oil is giving you higher actual wear. You are inferring wear from a tool that isn't directly measuring it. To directly measure wear, you need to perform a tear-down with measurements.
Any approved oil will provide adequate protection. But if one oil produces less actual wear than another, this isn't something you'll be able to flesh out with UOA's, this requires tear-downs.
I'm claiming they all have low wear. Still a small sample size of some of the oils so some deviate a little.
But I will take your point into consideration going forward.
My natural follow up question is where are the wear tests from the premium boutique oils... ?
You cannot determine relative oil quality through a simple spectrographic analysis. There are many variables that contribute to the “wear numbers” and you’re not isolating the oil contribution in any way. It’s not isolated nor controlled. And you have no way of separating it out.
Comparing the wear between two oils is a complicated and expensive test. Not a $30 UOA.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
The rub there is that if these are all approved lubricants, they've all been tested to deliver within the OEM's requirements for wear, so they should all have relatively low wear. This means it's not an overly useful conclusion to draw (that the UOA's show this).
The problem is folks trying to chase minute variances in PPM thinking they are chasing lower wear, when that's not in fact the case, and that's not within the intended scope of utility for the tool.
Excellent question!
I know @High Performance Lubricants has some teardown data from some large scale fleet testing that has been ongoing for them for several years. @RDY4WAR may be able to provide some of that data.
AMSOIL regularly publishes results from the standardized test sequences, some of them more relevant than others, and they directly compare their results to those of other oils.
These are from a 100,000 mile fleet test comparing their SS 5W-30 to an API approved syn blend 5W-30 that meets the spec for the Ford 3.5L EcoBoost engine:
None done by third party?
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Testing conducted in an independent lab using AMSOIL Signature Series 5W-30 Synthetic Motor Oil and a leading synthetic-blend 5W-30 motor oil in Ford F-150 trucks with 3.5L twin-turbo engines.
AMSOIL testing is usually done by SWRI IIRC.
. Thinking ULTRA for the FIT in the fall . Using the P.P. 0w-20 ( S.P. , GF-6A) along with the MOBIL1 M1-110A oil filter for the 2nd generation FIT .Approvals are series of controlled tests conducted on oil. However, the approvals don't demonstrate the absolute performance of said oils. In theory and probably in practice too, there are oils out there with identical approvals but different overall performance levels. For example, oil "A" passing the subject approval tests but with margin for better oxidative stability etc and oil "B" passing approvals but with less margin.The very term “approved oil” means you don’t have to make any assumptions, especially if you’re buying from a major or other reputable manufacturer.
Your equipment requires “approval A”, you buy oil that legitimately carries “approval A”, and you change it at the manufacturer’s “service recommendation”. No need for feelings, assumptions, ouija boards, or any other witchcraft. They’ve spent the money and done the testing so that the results are repeatable and reproducible. With data far greater than any $30-50 Oil Analysis can provide.
Exactly. Some oils might barely make approvals while others might far exceed them
The difference is not a significant one. The way approvals and licensing are handled doesn't allow much variance. The testing is primarily handled by the additive companies who put together add packs and base oil blends to send off for testing to that license or approval. If it passes, it's sold as an approved add pack. Brands / manufacturers purchase those add packs, buy the license, and then blend the oil to the recipe of that test. Blenders are limited in how much they can deviate from that recipe. Something like adding extra anti-oxidant, a little ester, or some ashless FM are out of the question. Even though they would improve the oil, they weren't present for testing and thus not allowed.
There are multiple approved add packs out there with some being better than others, but not by any huge margins. The most variation you'll find is with Shell and Mobil 1 as they co-own their own additive company.
This corners licensed oils into the same small box chemistry wise. You often have to ditch the cert to go outside the box to make substantial leaps in performance. The certs offer no incentive to do more than the minimum standard either. Therefore, it's usually a race to the bottom with brands spending more time finding ways to cut down production cost so they can retail cheaper than a competitor.
There are multiple approved add packs out there with some being better than others, but not by any huge margins. The most variation you'll find is with Shell and Mobil 1 as they co-own their own additive company.
This corners licensed oils into the same small box chemistry wise. You often have to ditch the cert to go outside the box to make substantial leaps in performance. The certs offer no incentive to do more than the minimum standard either. Therefore, it's usually a race to the bottom with brands spending more time finding ways to cut down production cost so they can retail cheaper than a competitor.
would Chevron who makes Havoline engine oils,,use Oronite additive pacs,also be like Shell/Mobil,infinium be classified as a full lubricant manufacture instead of a blender? so they can more closely formulate their products more to their liking as still meet required license and api & manufactures etc parameters that other blenders may not be able to without restrictions??
Similar threads
