MPT Industries 5w-30 (30K Version) VOA

Joined
Jan 26, 2006
Messages
1,091
Location
Md, USA
I sent off for this VOA because of the disappointing analysis I got a few weeks ago.


MPT UOA

The fine folks at MPT sent me some replacement oil to try it again at a lesser interval, they believe the UOA was affected by some type of fuel additive (I don't think I even used any). I still don't see how the TBN would be so low.

Blackstone Comments:

Thanks for the notes. We found some lead in this sample, so we ran it twice and it was still there,
so that could account for a bit of what was found in your Sentra's sample. Silicon is an antifoaming additive
and it's harmless in that form. There were some unusual additive levels in this oil. Note zinc. It read lower
than phosphorus, while in most oils it's the other way around. We also found a lot of molybdenum (antiwear
additive) and that could be why insolubles read high; it's probably just additive falling out of suspension. The
TBN was strong at 11.5, since 1.0 is low.



ALUMINUM-1
CHROMIUM-0
IRON-1
COPPER-1
LEAD-3
TIN-0
MOLYBDENUM-943
NICKEL-0
SILVER-0
TITANIUM-0
MANGANESE-0
POTASSIUM-1
BORON-12
SILICON-10
SODIUM-3
CALCIUM-2755
MAGNESIUM-12
PHOSPHORUS-1579
ZINC-1044
BARIUM-0

Water%-0
cSt Viscosity @ 100°C-10.47
SUS Viscosity @ 210°F-60.9
Flashpoint in °F-4.45
Fuel %-0
Antifreeze %-0
Insolubles %-0.5
TBN-11.5
 
Last edited:
Yikes this stuff looked good on paper last time I posted it but it's definitely not extended drain compatible if it can't do 15k in that engine like a batch of Mobil 1 EP could.
 
Interesting oil similar to the old RL SL/SM 5W-30 but even heavier with a HTHSV of 3.9cP and 158 VI.

This really is a 40 grade oil, being heavier than M1 0W-40 and I can see why MPT recommends it for BMWs.
 
Are you saying that they recommend it for BMWs strictly on the basis of viscosity?

Not slamming you as AFAIK this is what everyone does. Why, no one ever knows. But it is typical.

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
This really is a 40 grade oil, being heavier than M1 0W-40 and I can see why MPT recommends it for BMWs.
 
Originally Posted By: montero1
The fine folks at MPT sent me some replacement oil to try it again at a lesser interval, they believe the UOA was affected by some type of fuel additive (I don't think I even used any). I still don't see how the TBN would be so low.

I ran into this MPT motor oil some time ago.

Since the last thing I want to do is try an unproved new oil on my expensive engines, I appreciate your going first.

What I did do is look into MPT Industries.

MPT Industries

I first found that MPT Industries, Auto Chic, and OC Products are not business names registered with the Secretary of State in New Jersey. Additional digging found M.P.T. Racing, Inc., in Dover, NJ, incorporated in 1985 at the address of MPT Industries. Additional digging turned up Michael Trueba, Jr, as president of this privately held corporation.

I then ran down the business location on the NJ Division of Taxation website and found that 85 Franklin Rd 6B is a condo in an office building containing 41 offices. 6B is owned by Hamilton Park Realty LLC, which is a Brooklyn, New York entity with no disclosure on ownership.

At that point my conclusion was that if this oil wrecked my engine getting compensation for it was going to very difficult.

For those of us who go back to the early days of synthetics this all seems too familiar.

I am not sure who is blending this oil, but my guess is that it isn't MPT Industries, which appears to be a sales operation. The odd results you're getting in the analyses seems to confirm that hunch.
 
Recently purchased same oil 5w30 MPT industries for my 2000 Lexus LS 400 and requested sds form from MPT industries. They responded same day and sent this safety data form.
 

Attachments

  • MPTThirtyKSDS5W30.pdf
    777.1 KB · Views: 52
In case file doesn’t download these are pertinent aspects of oil composition
INGREDIENT: CAS NO. % WT ACGIH-TLV-TWA Trade Secret Additives Non-Hazardous 12-20% Polyalphaolefin 68649-12-7 20-55%
Polyester Polyol Proprietary 21-55%
Ditridecyl Adipate, Diester 16958-92-2 10-24%
Zinc dialkyldithiophosphate 68649-42-3 1.2-1.5%
 
Typical Properties

Viscosity @100 ° C, (ASTM D445) 10.9

Viscosity @ 40 ° C, (ASTM D445) 64.1

Viscosity Index (ASTM D2270) 162

CCS Viscosity cP @ (°C) (ASTM D5293) 3999 (-30)

Pour Point °C (°F) (ASTM D97) -45 (-49)

Flash Point °C (°F) (ASTM D92) 238 (460)

Noack Volatility (ASTM D5800) 5.4

High Temperature/High Shear (HTHS) (ASTM D5293) 3.9

Total Base Number (TBN) 12.5
 
Which of those values do I substitute for the complete lack of certifications, licenses and approvals?
Most approvals in and of themselves are attainable using a wide variety of base stocks... maybe with the exception of the VW 508/509 oils that generally have a high pao content to reach the specification. I appreciate having a choice of “boutique” oils from independent companies that contain more expensive high quality group IV and Group V base stocks, which is an underlying theme of bitog’s existence. Initially thought question was negatively rhetorical in a literal sense and didn’t warrant any meaningful response... Especially since top quality oils like Amsoil and Redline don’t pay for external certifications, licenses, and approvals-because a quality product and ingredients stands alone.
 
Most approvals in and of themselves are attainable using a wide variety of base stocks... maybe with the exception of the VW 508/509 oils that generally have a high pao content to reach the specification. I appreciate having a choice of “boutique” oils from independent companies that contain more expensive high quality group IV and Group V base stocks, which is an underlying theme of bitog’s existence. Initially thought question was negatively rhetorical in a literal sense and didn’t warrant any meaningful response... Especially since top quality oils like Amsoil and Redline don’t pay for external certifications, licenses, and approvals-because a quality product and ingredients stands alone.
So if your answer is base stock composition then none of the values in that list would be used to substitute for an approval.
 
So if your answer is base stock composition then none of the values in that list would be used to substitute for an approval.
I heartily agree that high quality base-stock composition carries more gravitas than ubiquitous certifications-often attained through use of lesser oils. Approvals often require additive adjustments for something like LSPI, not relevant on many vehicles. There is no substitution for exemplary group 4-5 synthetic base stocks-we are in complete accord with that😊.
 
There’s no substitute for an approval. Base stock is less relevant, no way I’d buy some oil that touts base over actual proven performance.
 
There’s no substitute for an approval. Base stock is less relevant, no way I’d buy some oil that touts base over actual proven performance.
Especially when there are so many, good, approved (or just proven) oils out there. I don't see much room for an unknown, personally. What problem is it trying to solve?
 
Back
Top