Oil Comparisons

Status
Not open for further replies.
buster

buster

Joined
Nov 16, 2002
Messages
40,454
Location
NJ
I see people comparing Redline to Mobil 1 or Amsoil Dominator to PP etc. Most of these comparisons are not really fair comparisons.

You can't compare Redline/Dominator/SSO to say PP because the others are not API approved and do not follow the same set of formulating guidelines. It's an apples/oranges comparison to make.

Anyone can beef up the anti-wear/EP properties of an oil. At the same time, something else will be compromised. The key is balance. Why do you think only the XL line is truly API certified? Take Synpower for example. Probably does great on the Seq IVA but fails the GM 4178M/HTO-06 spec. It's very difficult to meet all high end spec's and yet retain the API SM/ILSAC GF-4 cert. More ZDP isn't always better either. That is a big fallacy. For flat tappet cames, it probably is but in most modern engines it won't do much good above a certain limit.

Wear is an area where good enough is good enough IMO. Modern engines do not wear out and when they do, it's usually when the doors are ready to fall off. It's definitely an attention getter for consumers though. Rant off.
 
Originally Posted By: mechtech2
So we can't compare women to each other, because a few of them are really ugly or really pretty?
Of course we can.


I would describe it more like this:

Veronica with perfect tatas, shapely behind, a face that leaves you speachless and an IQ of 140 is Delvac 1. She's also hard to keep entertained, expensive to keep and has expensive tastes.

There are other women with great tatas, but other features lack.

You can have one with all three of the first traits, but a mushbox upstairs.

There are no perfect women. And there are no perfect men. And there is no perfect oil. We choose to ignore the traits that annoy us the least and enjoy the ones that we like the best.

It is all a question of balance.
 
You can compare, I'm just pointing out that it's not always an apples to apples comparison. Some oils are truly API compliant and others are not, for different reasons.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
I would describe it more like this:

Veronica with perfect tatas, shapely behind, a face that leaves you speachless and an IQ of 140 is Delvac 1. She's also hard to keep entertained, expensive to keep and has expensive tastes.

There are other women with great tatas, but other features lack.

You can have one with all three of the first traits, but a mushbox upstairs.

There are no perfect women. And there are no perfect men. And there is no perfect oil. We choose to ignore the traits that annoy us the least and enjoy the ones that we like the best.

It is all a question of balance.



That's philosophical overkill.
 
Quote:
Probably does great on the Seq IVA but fails the GM 4178M/HTO-06 spec.

How do you know Synpower fails the GM 4178M/HTO-06 spec? I'd say it's more likely it was never tested for it.
 
Originally Posted By: Drivebelt
Quote:
Probably does great on the Seq IVA but fails the GM 4178M/HTO-06 spec.

How do you know Synpower fails the GM 4178M/HTO-06 spec? I'd say it's more likely it was never tested for it.


Because I asked them.

They will have a GM 4187M approved by the end of the year end and HT0-06 approved oil not until 2009.

So as you can see, they cherry picked a test that you have to pass to meet ILSAC GF-4, and claimed superiority. Yet no data figures are given.
 
"Wear is an area where good enough is good enough IMO. Modern engines do not wear out and when they do, it's usually when the doors are ready to fall off. It's definitely an attention getter for consumers though. Rant off. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Looks like my job is done here.
 
Originally Posted By: mechtech2
So we can't compare women to each other, because a few of them are really ugly or really pretty?
Of course we can.
Not really because they all look pretty at closing time.
 
Hi,
buster - As usual you make a very good point. Well done - comparisons made on less than a perfectly flat playing field are primarily meaningless.

Silent thought "Watch that word "meaningless" Doug, Pablo may have taken his eyes off the 4 ball gadget that he plays with"!
 
Last edited:
The SSO formulation IS using an API/SM, GF-4 level of ZDDP...about 800 ppm of P and 1000 ppm of Zinc. So it certainly could be licensed if there was a sound business case to do so.
 
Originally Posted By: mechtech2
Who cares if the playing field is level?
We care about the bottom line - the results - which has better qualities.


I'm pretty sure the POINT of the playing field is to ensure that all oils meet certain guidelines and pass certain durability, temperature and wear tests.

If some guy with an over the road tractor with a 600 CAT is looking to buy an oil to give that engine the best protection, he has a number of options.

He can run Rotella, which is certified/approved by a variety of different manufacturers to be used in this application.

He can run Delvac, which again, is certified/approved by a variety of different manufacturers to be used in this application.

He can run Delo, which ALSO is certified/approved by a variety of different manufacturers to be used in this application.

OR

He can run Royal Purple, which is purple. And has the basic API certification.

So, this begs the question, which oil is BETTER? The oil that has been tested and approved by a long list of heavy diesel engine manufacturers or the oil with the basic API certification but it has a purple colour and people rave about it.

People will pick and poke, rant and rave about the validity of some of the test procedures, some of the approval methods....etc. To some people, this is not important. To others it is.

So while some oil manufacturer/blender might be trying to force-feed the results from ONE test down your throat..... Sometimes I think it's wise to sit back and look at the BIG picture.

Shell, Exxon-Mobil....etc. These companies spend exuberant amounts of money to have their oils TESTED and APPROVED by the manufacturers of automotive and heavy diesel engines.

And while to some, this may be irrelevant, others may not feel that way.

General Motors recommends the use of Mobil 1. This is due to THEIR testing of oils based on a variety of methods as well as complete tear downs.

CAT, Cummins....etc. They do testing as well.

So, when you look at a back of an oil bottle, for example, Delvac 1, and it says:

Mobil Delvac 1 Meets or Exceeds the following industry and builder specifications:
5W-40
API CI-4 PLUS/CI-4/CH-4/CG-4/CF-4/CF/SL/SJ
ACEA E7/E5/E4/E3
Caterpillar ECF-1
Cummins CES 20072/20071
Detroit Diesel Power Guard Oil Specification
Ford WSS-M2C171-D
Global DHD-1
JASO DH-1


Mobil Delvac 1 5W-40 has the following builder approvals:
5W-40
Cummins CES 20078/20077/20076/20075
Mack EO-N Premium Plus 03, EO-M Plus
Mercedes Benz 228.5
Volvo VDS-3, VDS-2


Mobil Delvac 1 5W-40 also recommended for use in applications requiring:
5W-40
Renault RVI RXD


OR, you look at Royal Purple and it says it meets the API certified and you have people CLAIMING it's better, which oil REALLY DOES have the BETTER qualities?

I would choose the Delvac 1. I believe these tests and certifications; the hoops that the oils and their manufacturers have to jump through and PAY FOR exist for a reason. And I believe that reason is to quantify the lubricants ability to PROPERLY protect an engine in all testable aspects; not one single test touted as a means to show an oils superiority, nor individual testimonies with no sound basis for their claims.

If an oil has as many certifications and approvals as Delvac 1, I KNOW it is good to use in my engine, and that I am guaranteed that it will provide the level of protection I am looking for.

With other oils.... this may not be the case.

So for ME, I guess the answer to your question is the oil that has the most certifications and manufacturer approvals. The oil that passes all the tests that it's put through on the playing field.

I understand from Gary that AMSOIL in fact tests their oils in regards to the applications they "recommend" for, and simply are not willing to pay for the actual approval. This provides some peace of mind as well and I think provides some validity to the philosophy behind the manufacturer approvals. If AMSOIL uses these testing procedures for their oils to ensure that they are up to snuff, then there must be some sound logic behind this.

That's my 2 cents anyways
grin2.gif
 
Originally Posted By: buster
I see people comparing Redline to Mobil 1 or Amsoil Dominator to PP etc. Most of these comparisons are not really fair comparisons.

You can't compare Redline/Dominator/SSO to say PP because the others are not API approved and do not follow the same set of formulating guidelines. It's an apples/oranges comparison to make.

Anyone can beef up the anti-wear/EP properties of an oil. At the same time, something else will be compromised. The key is balance. Why do you think only the XL line is truly API certified? Take Synpower for example. Probably does great on the Seq IVA but fails the GM 4178M/HTO-06 spec. It's very difficult to meet all high end spec's and yet retain the API SM/ILSAC GF-4 cert. More ZDP isn't always better either. That is a big fallacy. For flat tappet cames, it probably is but in most modern engines it won't do much good above a certain limit.

Wear is an area where good enough is good enough IMO. Modern engines do not wear out and when they do, it's usually when the doors are ready to fall off. It's definitely an attention getter for consumers though. Rant off.

I agree, buster, that what you say is true, but its relevance may vary from one application to another. The balance of cleanliness, wear, and OCI in formulating an oil is made on the basis of what is most appropriate for the general automotive population, or perhaps for a subset of that population. I see two important caveats that might be relevant to individual users.

The first is that one might choose an oil primarily on the basis of any one of those characteristics, or perhaps some unique combination of them. Somebody with a sludger would be most interested in cleanliness, and others might want a long OCI. Personally, I am most interested in wear, wear, and wear, and want to reduce wear metals as much as possible. I will run the oil as long as UOA indicates is appropriate based on the oil I choose, but I will choose the oil based primarily on my perception of its ability to control wear.

The other thing is the whole "the car falls apart before the engine wear out" thing. True, probably, most of the time.

However, I like to keep cars a long time, and I drive a lot of miles. I started a thread a while back based on the notion that modern engines rarely if ever actually "wear out," and as it turns out, quite a few actually do:

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...572#Post1084572

Therefore, and since I tend to rack up the miles (my E30 now at 312k), a factor-of-two difference across the board in wear ppms, and the factor-of-two difference in remaining engine life that it would imply, is very important to me in a completely practical sense.
 
I agree with you but I would also say oil analysis has it's limitations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

tired
  • Locked
Negative experiences with Supertech/Kirkland Signature/Amazon Basics/Warren oils?
2
Replies
23
Views
1K
53' Stude
Cujet
Highest HTHS oils available, taking into account shear stability
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
donnyj08
wwillson
  • Sticky
Pennzoil - Low-speed pre-ignition (LSPI) Q&A - Answers
Replies
6
Views
2K
garageman402
D
Oil experts, please share your knowledge.
2
Replies
26
Views
3K
kschachn
C
Endurance Race Synthetic Oil
Replies
14
Views
461
Japanese
Back
Top Bottom