Once you run synthetic-go back to conventional?

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: stockrex
pls don't have a coronary: on my dmax, I went from dino to M1 and now to delvac, going to m1 in winter again.

And I'll probably go to a PCMO conventional or synthetic on the G down the road. Plus, I have a blend (Defy) waiting for my truck. They'll both survive.

@fpracha: If I were looking at a 0w-20 versus a 5w-20 or a 0w30 (ignore GC of course for this discussion) instead of a 5w30, if the application actually called for the 5w-XX instead of mandating the 0w-XX, I'd probably pay some attention to the VI, along with the cold cranking values. Up here, if I were storing it in my heated shop, I'd pay more attention to the VI. If it were being stored outside, I'd definitely take the cold cranking specifications into account. Or, if I had my brother's Prius or something like that, I'd definitely consider looking for a higher VI. Basically, though, given that my daily drivers are usually stored in a heated shop, I'd be foolish to pick a 0w-XX without paying some attention to the VI, since cold cranking wouldn't be the most important issue at all.

Even if you take something like GC and my old F-150 (where the GC would easily exceed the specifications and have plenty of zinc and whatever else I might like), it probably wouldn't be my first oil choice among 0w30 oils, even if all 0w-30s were priced identically. My main beef with GC is that it's only in 1 litre bottles, which I despise, so I'm biased.

As for base stocks, I'm kind of on the fence. I'm sore about how Group III oils are called synthetic. But, there's absolutely nothing inferior about the performance or certifications on various Group III and Group III+ type oils. We've seen Group III oils be very shear resistant and hold up quite well for extended drains, so that's pretty impressive. If I were looking at a boutique oil, I'd "like" it to be Group IV or V because of the premium price boutiques cost. But, look at how many Group III and III+ oils have solid ACEA specifications.

If I were choosing an oil for an extended drain, it would be nice if it had a high VI, for obvious reasons. However, the first thing I'd be looking for is some indication that it would be suitable for extended drains, be it an oil company guarantee, ACEA specifications, and so forth, particularly along with UOA evidence.

I'm one of those who is sceptical about these ultra-high VI oils holding up well over extended drains. From a scientific standpoint, I don't have anything to back that up, though, and it's hard to make a valid comparison. The highest VI 0w-20 isn't designed to compete against M1 EP or Amsoil SS.

And if I were to try to compare long drain suitability in my G37 between the Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40 I'm running now versus the higher VI Delvac 1 ESP 0w-40, it wouldn't be a fair comparison. The former has a significantly higher TBN thanks to the ACEA specifications it meets. That doesn't say anything about TBN retention, but without an even starting point, it would be very difficult to make a fair comparison.

I really would like to see how some of the very high VI oils do over extended drains and see the KV40 and KV100 values to see how the VI holds up, too.

 

[fpracha]

Originally Posted By: Garak
As for base stocks, I'm kind of on the fence. I'm sore about how Group III oils are called synthetic. But, there's absolutely nothing inferior about the performance or certifications on various Group III and Group III+ type oils. We've seen Group III oils be very shear resistant and hold up quite well for extended drains, so that's pretty impressive. If I were looking at a boutique oil, I'd "like" it to be Group IV or V because of the premium price boutiques cost. But, look at how many Group III and III+ oils have solid ACEA specifications.

If I were choosing an oil for an extended drain, it would be nice if it had a high VI, for obvious reasons. However, the first thing I'd be looking for is some indication that it would be suitable for extended drains, be it an oil company guarantee, ACEA specifications, and so forth, particularly along with UOA evidence.

I'm one of those who is sceptical about these ultra-high VI oils holding up well over extended drains. From a scientific standpoint, I don't have anything to back that up, though, and it's hard to make a valid comparison. The highest VI 0w-20 isn't designed to compete against M1 EP or Amsoil SS.

And if I were to try to compare long drain suitability in my G37 between the Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40 I'm running now versus the higher VI Delvac 1 ESP 0w-40, it wouldn't be a fair comparison. The former has a significantly higher TBN thanks to the ACEA specifications it meets. That doesn't say anything about TBN retention, but without an even starting point, it would be very difficult to make a fair comparison.

I really would like to see how some of the very high VI oils do over extended drains and see the KV40 and KV100 values to see how the VI holds up, too.
+1. thanks for your candid opinions.
Yes I am a bit skeptical too about the mineral oils being grouped together with the true synthetics, regardless of the performance in actual application, it is not true chemistry-wise.

As for TBN retention, it is more critical in diesels than the pcmos, while i have noted that the ultra-high VI oils are almost always exclusively pcmo oils (not intended for diesels).

This begs the question - if an oil has a reasonable high TBN (say 7.0) good enough for a pcmo and a moderately high VI of say 160-175 range, will it not be good for extended drains in a pcmo application ???
(After all, the HDEOs do have somewhat excessive detergent concentrations that have been commented to be not very suitable for gasoline engines.)

 

[Garak]

I think the TBN issue has improved over the years in HDEOs, too. With ULSD being mandated across the board (including off road applications) throughout North America for a significant period of time already, we haven't seen a lot of problems with lower TBN HDEOs. Personally, I'd still prefer something with higher TBN (or better retention) for extended OCIs. With respect to VI, there are a couple HDEO examples with very good VI, but you're right - I haven't seen any HDEOs with a VI of 200, either.

As for your question, I suppose such a hypothetical oil might work for extended drains, depending of course on the application and usage. As for HDEO detergent concentrations, I don't think they're as high as they used to be. After all, they do contribute to TBN (which has lowered) and VOAs show the levels a bit less than before. I would still call the levels healthy but not excessive. If anything, that's an argument to extend the OCI and take advantage of that and potentially higher TBN.

An HDEO in a gasser is fine by me, assuming it meets the specifications or is "close enough." I would hesitate to use Delvac 1 ESP in an application calling for Mobil 1 ESP, which are rather different creatures.

The only misgiving I have about HDEO in gassers is with respect the viscosity choices available. I wouldn't recommend anyone in a vehicle calling for 0w-20 or 5w-20 switching to an HDEO unless they were addressing a specific issue. The 0w-30, 5w30, and 10w30 HDEOs are going to be relatively heavy within the 30 grade, too, as opposed to the SN/GF-5 variants of the same grades.

I'm not one to worry excessively about cats and phosphorous levels - if the vehicle doesn't burn a lot of oil, it's not going to be a huge issue, and we're not exactly talking about race oils here, either. With more European vehicles making it to North America and proliferation of emissions technologies beyond simple cats, that's where we have to be careful.

The key, in my view, is to understand the manufacturer's specifications. If you don't understand what they're trying to accomplish or you're still under warranty, stick to what they recommend. If you're out of warranty and can figure out what they're trying to address with their specifications, you might have a bit more freedom. That's what I do like about the ACEA specifications. The different sequences tell you a bit more about the goals of the standards, as opposed to the more catch all SN/GF-5 type specifications. With the more advanced emissions systems, you're more likely to see ACEA specifications or the OEM specs.

That would be my biggest concern - people confusing a normal SN/GF-5 5w30 with one of the European OEM 5w30s and using it in a modern European passenger diesel. It didn't work that well 15 years ago when dealerships were lousing things up, and I don't think it would work any better today.

 

[901Memphis]

7.0 isn't a high tbn. 10-12 would be a higher range. Like the mpt thirty k I posted recently. Castrol edge and penn ultra have some of the highest over the counter tbn you can buy.

 

[Garak]

That's quite true, but these days, unless an oil has certain ACEA specifications (which include Syntec even in GF-5 flavour, and possibly PU), advertise compatibility with such specifications (i.e. the MPT you mentioned), or is a long drain oil (Amsoil SS, the MPT), then you're likely to see a lower TBN.

Various ACEA specifications require different starting TBN levels, both on the gas and diesel side of things. With gasoline and diesel improving (and continuing to improve) over the years, a higher TBN isn't as necessary as it once was. Better TBN retention helps, too.

 

[JANDSZIRKLE]

SOUNDS LIKE REDNECKOLOGY AROUND WHERE I LIVE.
I JUST FILLED TWO OLD TRUCKS WITH MAXLIFE NEXTGEN, IF IM NOT WRONG, ITS A SYN BLEND, NOT HAVING MUCHTOO GO ON AS TOO WHAT WAS USED ONTHEM BEFORE I CHANGED THE OIL.
WHAT I DO KNOW, THEY ARE PURRING QUIET WHENRUN, AND MUST REALLY LIKE DINO AND SYN MIXED ALONG WITH REREFINED OIL.
JUST MY 2 CENTS...

 

[Garak]

You're very loud, but your point is correct.

I've gone back and forth with no problems. I've also used blends. And properly recycled oil (i.e. NextGen and so forth) are great, too!

 

[Clevy]

Caterham and Garak.
Thank you for looking in depth at the co-op oil I was interested in. You've helped me in concluding that its not for me,so I'll take the advice and pass.
Thanks again for really looking at it. I appreciate your time and effort.

Thanks guys

 

[Garak]

No problem, Clevy. It was very tempting the first time I saw it, I must say, at least until I saw the VI. I think the issue with the Co-op and their oil is that due to their market demographic, I suspect they don't have a lot of incentive to have cutting edge formulations. Of course their diesel oils have most of the latest specs, but a higher VI isn't as much of a consideration given the nature of commercial use. I'm sure plenty of fleets use Co-op stuff, so being properly certified is important.

They also have a lot of old-style oils available, given the amount of legacy equipment out there that is serviced solely by Co-op products. If one wants an older diesel specification, for instance, I can think of nowhere else to buy such a product, at least where it's not old stock.

They certainly don't have the incentive to create the highest VI 0w-20 available or meet a lot of European specifications. There aren't a lot of foreign car dealerships in small town Saskatchewan, and those who need a Ford/Chrysler/GM oil are just as likely to get it at the dealership, or not care and just buy whatever the Co-op offers in the first place.

 

[fpracha]

Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
7.0 isn't a high tbn. 10-12 would be a higher range. Like the mpt thirty k I posted recently. Castrol edge and penn ultra have some of the highest over the counter tbn you can buy.
yes indeed you are right, but it is quite reasonable TBN for a pcmo, specially if excellent TBN retention is built into the total formula.
Going towards extended drains in pcmo applications calls for extra caution in controlling particle ingress in the first place. More frequent oil filter changes are usually mandated in such cases, to prevent pre-mature wear.

 

[901Memphis]

Originally Posted By: fpracha
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
7.0 isn't a high tbn. 10-12 would be a higher range. Like the mpt thirty k I posted recently. Castrol edge and penn ultra have some of the highest over the counter tbn you can buy.
yes indeed you are right, but it is quite reasonable TBN for a pcmo, specially if excellent TBN retention is built into the total formula.
Going towards extended drains in pcmo applications calls for extra caution in controlling particle ingress in the first place. More frequent oil filter changes are usually mandated in such cases, to prevent pre-mature wear.


I disagree with changing the filter during extended drains, i think you just need to choose the appropriate filter for your interval. I see many people under utilizing filters that are designed for extended drains.

 

[fpracha]

Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
Originally Posted By: fpracha
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
7.0 isn't a high tbn. 10-12 would be a higher range. Like the mpt thirty k I posted recently. Castrol edge and penn ultra have some of the highest over the counter tbn you can buy.
yes indeed you are right, but it is quite reasonable TBN for a pcmo, specially if excellent TBN retention is built into the total formula.
Going towards extended drains in pcmo applications calls for extra caution in controlling particle ingress in the first place. More frequent oil filter changes are usually mandated in such cases, to prevent pre-mature wear.


I disagree with changing the filter during extended drains, i think you just need to choose the appyes, ropriate filter for your interval. I see many people under utilizing filters that are designed for extended drains.
true if using OEM or other long life filters, but not if low quality low price elements are used.

 

[Garak]

At least the OEM long life filters are readily available here and cheap for the German applications, where one runs into the longer OCIs in the first place. Here, there's little incentive to go with anything but OEM for the German brands, since Mann, Mahle, German Bosch, and so forth are by far the cheapest.