Objectivity and Delvac 1

G-MAN · Oct 11, 2003

The recent hoopla over the alleged non-objectivity when it comes to Castrol Syntec 0w30/Formula SLX/Veedol Syntron and a remark in another thread about Delvac 1 being "well tested," got me to thinking. There has been a lot of praise heaped on Mobil Delvac 1 on this forum. It has routinely been described as Mobil's "best" synthetic oil. So I decided to do a search to see how many UOAs we have to back up all the laudatory comments. Know what I found? TWO. That's right, there are only TWO UOAs of Delvac 1 used in gasoline engines posted on this board. (There were three or four posted in the diesel section, but they don't count for the purposes of evaluating the oil's performance in gasoline applications, IMO.)

Just something to think about when putting the non-objectivity over GC in perspective.

buster · Oct 11, 2003

Delvac 1's reputation is based on "word of mouth" and many that have used it backed up by UOA's I imagine in that industry. Looking at it on paper, it clearly is a great oil. It's marketed as a 60-100k mile drain oil for the trucking industry. It might have the similar effect that Redline does on gas engines with it's more aggressive chemistry. I don't think anyone doubts GC's abilities, but the sample size for both GC and D1 are relatively small. My issue with GC is availability and the fact that even Castrol can't answer to why and what this product is. They are clearly doing the same **** as they have always done. For years so many have thought Syntec to be such a good oil. I've even seen newer commercials raving about Syntec's superiority when in fact its only an average oil. So when Mobil 1 and Amsoil are as readily available and proven as they are, it's going to take some more time to really see if the GC is worth the hassle and hype.

You could also argue, like I have, that there are not enough UOA's to really tell how well GC is. If I were to guess, I'd say it's great oil. Delvac 1 uses a higher quality base stock, more ZDDP and esters. Whether that translates into good engine wear in gas engines we don't know. Redline is very similar. Talk about objectivity? Redline was proclaimed the "Oil of all oils" but so far it's been mediocre at best. More excuses have been made for RL then any oil I've seen. Meanwhile Amsoil and Mobil 1 UOA's keep rolling in and impressing.

[ October 12, 2003, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: buster ]

sprintman · Oct 12, 2003

buster you've done it again. RL 'mediocre at best' yet Tyrolkids 5W40 UOA is about the best ever here. This forum is becoming ridiculous, how about we get back to where we were say 6-12mths ago when there was none of this 'Edmunds style' bs?

buster · Oct 12, 2003

quote:

but so far it's been mediocre at best

Sprintman, your you nuts? What are you talking about? READ WHAT I SAID..."so far it's been mediocre at best". The UOAs HAVE BEEN mediocre at best. Anyone who says otherwise is smoking something. Unbelievable. BTW, did anyone read Tooslick's post about Redline? The guy is a propolsion engineer...do you think he might know just a little something about RL?

I'll tell you what else I'm sick and tired of. People claiming Oil X is so great with only one good UOA of 20. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. I also dont care how well RL does in some stupic benchmark test that means nothing in the real world. Can we get real here people? I call it like I see it. Look at Amsoil's S2k. Does anyone in their right mind think that is a 35k mile drain oil? Give me a break. It deserves to get ripped apart! It's $8qt for christ sake. And one more thing while I'm on it, THICKER OILS ARE NOT BETTER SO GET OVER IT. If UOA's meand something, lets stop this nonsense that is made up. It all depends on the engine. The same freakin posts keep getting recirculated bc some people refuse to believe a bad UOA, but when it's good, everything is fine. Can't have it both ways. This site goes down hill when people distort the truth based on myths, biases and other bs.

[ October 12, 2003, 08:57 PM: Message edited by: buster ]

Doug Hillary · Oct 12, 2003

Hi,
I have nearly 70 UOAs on Delvac 1 in my diesels, I'm so sorry they are not valid in this thread

To me an engine oil must be cost effective - this can only truely be neasured over millions of kilometres. It must also embrace the whole ambit of the engine's servicing and eventual lifespan. It must include availability too

I have Delvac 1 in my three "immediate" cars but I do not intend to obtain UOAs on two of them MY98 BMW Z3 2.8 & MY02 Subaru Outback 2.5
I will provide a UOA on my Porsche which will follow on from its year on Shell Helix Ultra 15w-50. This should be available near the end of November

I have used diesel engine oils in petrol engines since the 1960s with many benefits and no problems
They were factory fill in Porsche engines for many years and is still a secondary requirement

It would be a sad loss if objectivity and professionalism here was overtaken by subjectivity. Engineers are taught to be objective - I have never forgotten the benefits

Regards

Gary Allan · Oct 12, 2003

A library of UOA's is difficult to compile. I did a UAO on Mobil 1 (about a 9k change) ..and then switched to Delvac 1 for a 10k change. It's taken over 7 months to accumulate the mileage for a decent UOA. Hence with GC ...we will not have any real data on it for quite a while.

There's a whole lot of "switching horses in midstream" here. There's certainly a good deal of hype involved and it does tend to cloud the facts.

btw- I'm at 8500 toward my 10k change w/Delvac 1. I don't think it went the distance.

Robbie Alexander · Oct 12, 2003

quote:

Originally posted by Pablo:
I tend to agree, G-man II, but I always got the impression that the jury is still out on Delvac1. Maybe I'll eventually try it in my stealth 15W-40 shoot out....

The only way this board will know is to post results, hey go for it.

Doug Hillary · Oct 12, 2003

Hi,
I agree that data from UOAs on Delvac 1 will be of great value. However it is but one factor

I am happy to post these UOA details but they only relate to heavy diesel engines and to the viscosity stability of Delvac 1

ENGINES

1998-2001)
Detroit Diesel DDEC 4 @ 500hp engine(s)
Mann-Hummel Spinner 2 centrifuge(s) fitted
Donaldson ELF 3998 FF filter(s) used

USE:
Total distance covered = 1 800 000+kms
Average OC cycle = 90kkms
Top up average = 1ltr/6kkms

VISCOSITY:
Viscosity Limits @ 40C cSt
Delvac 1 new = 85 ( VOA )
Detroit's allowable Max = 119
Detroit's allowable Min = 72

UOAs (60)
Overall average UOAs at OC point = 86
Highest UOA = 90
Lowest UOA = 82

Note at each OC point the sump levels were at the dipstick's "low" mark or at 30 litres ( full at 38 litres )capacity

I hope this helps

Regards

sprintman · Oct 12, 2003

Typical buster, personal abuse. Thats another example of BITOG going downhill.

sprintman · Oct 12, 2003

And buster while I'm on a roll I have Pennzoil 5W30 dino (not a thick 30W0 either) in my Outback right now so I guess can't be me your aiming anti thick oil comments at can it? Also I don't believe anybody, and I mean anybody on this forum is as open minded as myself. I ran 25W70 in my Mazda turbo for years util joining BITOG and until recently Pennzoil 10W30 dino and everything in between. I don't see you or anybody else here climbing out of your comfort zone to that extent or anywhere near it. That would be like you or Patman running 25W70 and it ain't gonna happen is it??. I buy/try everything I talk about here, who else does?

Jelly · Oct 12, 2003

quote:

Originally posted by sprintman:
I buy/try everything I talk about here, who else does?

Me

sprintman · Oct 12, 2003

Good theres two of us then!

Pablo · Oct 12, 2003

I tend to agree, G-man II, but I always got the impression that the jury is still out on Delvac1. Maybe I'll eventually try it in my stealth 15W-40 shoot out....

Terry · Oct 12, 2003

"Unbelievable. BTW, did anyone read Tooslick's post about Redline? The guy is a propolsion engineer...do you think he might know just a little something about RL? ".

Buster,

Ted is a sharp cookie, well educated and certainly qualified but I do not think he ever has tested Redline automotive oils to the extent we have , nor does he have the background in automotive lubes to be hanging your hat on the statement you allude to.

Over and over I spend literally hours explaining automotive lubricant test results to Ph.D's that can talk a good game in theory with absolutely 0 experience in practical application of the proprietary formulas to correlate the theoretical.

Ted was IMHO giving an opinion and that from the angle of a Amsoil Dealer with a Jet propulsion background.

None of this is a slam on Ted, but please be careful drawing conclusions online unless the testing supports the theory. We have not seen enough testing here to draw your conclusion Buster.

Jelly · Oct 12, 2003

quote:

Originally posted by buster:
It all depends on the engine.

Couldn't have said it better myself...

pscholte · Oct 12, 2003

While I agree that there are a few--the true tribologists and analysts like Bob, MolaKule and Terry (there are others)--who participate on this board that can be considered objective, most of us can only hope to approach objectivity. I believe there are a lot of participants who, because they have seen a number of UOAs, or have done some independent "research," THINK they are able to be objective in these discussions, when, in fact, they are only being "enlightened subjectivists" (yes, I am guilty as charged, but I am NOT the ONLY one--in fact, I am one of MANY). I agree that unsubstantiated statements like "Omnioil is garbage" or comments like "it's good because it's green and smells like gummi bears" are not objective (I see nothing wrong with the latter in a humorous context, however), most participants are fooling themselves if they think they are so technically astute and are objective in the true scientific sense. Maybe we all need to come to agreement on what this site should be: purely technical and scientific or a place where reasonable information is exchanged in a collegial environment. If it is the former, then 90% of the participants (including me) ought seldom to post and merely listen, including some of you who long for the early days of the board when it was so pure (maybe you are fooling yourselves). If it is the latter, with the freedom that accompanies it, then we will have to accept that not all posts will be based on logic or good judgement and we will have to use peer pressure to cultivate improvement. Boards like this depend upon "amateurs" giving the best advice and making the best comments they know how...unless you want a board where a new topic occurs and responses are given at a rate of 5 per week. Now THAT will surely be an exciting place that people will want to visit.

buster · Oct 12, 2003

quote:

Typical buster, personal abuse

Hey, I'm defending myself. I only attack when I'm attacked and felt I had to explain myself better so I did.

As far as RL goes, I have no idea. I'm not an engineer, chemist or tribologist. I know VERY LITTLE about this stuff. I have only one way to base RL on and that is a $30 UOA. Maybe the oil is phenomenal. On paper, it looks way better then the rest. For racing I clearly would think it is. As an extended drain oil, not so sure. What else can I say.....

Propflux01 · Oct 12, 2003

quote:

Originally posted by pscholte:
While I agree that there are a few--the true tribologists and analysts like Bob, MolaKule and Terry (there are others)--who participate on this board that can be considered objective, most of us can only hope to approach objectivity. I believe there are a lot of participants who, because they have seen a number of UOAs, or have done some independent "research," THINK they are able to be objective in these discussions, when, in fact, they are only being "enlightened subjectivists"

I don't understand why you say this, it is because we have people like Bob, Terry, Molekule, etc. that we can be objective. When I look at something on this site, I look at UOA's, and people like the above who KNOW something about these products to aid in my decision on using them. UOA's in my opinion are proof of a products worthiness. If I see good UOA's, and also see Joe's 67' ford truck has 350,000 miles on Omnioil, I think Joe would have at least some proof that teh Omnioil was working. How is that being 'enlightened subjective'??

Spector · Oct 12, 2003

quote:

Originally posted by buster:
I'll tell you what else I'm sick and tired of. People claiming Oil X is so great with only one good UOA of 20. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. I also dont care how well RL does in some stupic benchmark test that means nothing in the real world. Can we get real here people? I call it like I see it. Look at Amsoil's S2k. Does anyone in their right mind think that is a 35k mile drain oil? Give me a break. It deserves to get ripped apart! It's $8qt for christ sake. And one more thing while I'm on it, THICKER OILS ARE NOT BETTER SO GET OVER IT. If UOA's meand something, lets stop this nonsense that is made up. It all depends on the engine. The same freakin posts keep getting recirculated bc some people refuse to believe a bad UOA, but when it's good, everything is fine. Can't have it both ways. This site goes down hill when people distort the truth based on myths, biases and other bs.

Man do I agree with you on this one. I am in the stages of evaluating whether to keep this site as a bookmark as the posts are just getting crazy it seems.

And, no hit on Terry, but we need a few more tribologist on this site to get a concensus on some issues. Now it is strictly his opinion, especially on RedLine, and Sorry, but it is primarily reasons why the oil is not performing in an engine in lieu of consistent good results. So far, one redLine 5W30 trend of two or three samples that looks good, all others, I agree mediocre. We need two or three more participants with terry's background (he continues to inform us that the rest of us are babes in the woods on interpreting analysis but I can live with the arrogance) to affirm what he has been expressing about this oil. Too few experts IMO and with only one so called expert that is also no science!

Pablo · Oct 12, 2003

pscholte - no offense to you or Bob:

I know Bob is a sharp cookie, REALLY knows his stuff and he is fairly objective but he does carry a product.....

What I am saying, with some lubrication issues there is not always gospel and most of the time it's a matter or degree. If that degree is pushed - well, knowledge can help YOU decide, but the other guy may be carrying a diffrent bag o' knowledge.

Objectivity and Delvac 1

Similar threads