Pennzoil Platinum used to be my favorite

[Astro14]

If more of X doesn't make an oil better then boutique or Premium oils like Amsoil, Redline, HPL killer add packs mean nothing then?

You cannot measure better add packs by adding up elements like calcium. They are not putting calcium in the oil, they’re putting calcium based additives in the oil. Those additives are complex, lots of elements, and not all “calcium” is the same.

You have to know what chemistry, what additives, are being used, and how they perform.

 

[Greasymechtech]

If more of X doesn't make an oil better then boutique or Premium oils like Amsoil, Redline, HPL killer add packs mean nothing then?

Shhhh..... you're not suppose to notice this.

 

[buster]

If more of X doesn't make an oil better then boutique or Premium oils like Amsoil, Redline, HPL killer add packs mean nothing then?

Those oils operate outside the approved market based products and all have a SA level well over 1.0. HPL is probably near 1.5 for SA in some of their oils.

 

[ZZman]

You cannot measure better add packs by adding up elements like calcium. They are not putting calcium in the oil, they’re putting calcium based additives in the oil. Those additives are complex, lots of elements, and not all “calcium” is the same.

You have to know what chemistry, what additives, are being used, and how they perform.

Then shouldn't manufacturers and testing labs start reporting on these things?

 

[TiGeo]

If more of X doesn't make an oil better then boutique or Premium oils like Amsoil, Redline, HPL killer add packs mean nothing then?

SHOTS FIRED SHOTS FIRED

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

What would these be and why not start testing for them to show them?

There are plenty of tests to show them. You just can’t get the tests done for $30 because some of them take 20 hours or more, and the whole gamut of machines in the lab.

I don’t know the individual components, maybe HPL Dave or @Foxtrot08 would be willing to share some generalizations of additives that don’t show in a $30 oil analysis.

 

[Astro14]

What would these be and why not start testing for them to show them?

The best way to test for those things is to measure performance.

Spectrographic analysis, which breaks the oil down into elements, is like vaporizing a car down into elements and then saying, “this is a better car because it has more carbon, or aluminum, in it”.

Which ignores what parts those elements, like aluminum, steel, and plastic, are used to build. How the parts made from aluminum are used. What actual hydrocarbons were used (you only know carbon, not if the carbon compound was butylene, or urethane, for example). Your ignoring how car was designed, and how the parts of the car work together.

You only know the relative mass of basic elements. it’s interesting, but but not definitive.

The real measure comes in testing the performance of the car, or in the case of oil, the additives.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

Then shouldn't manufacturers and testing labs start reporting on these things?

No, because these compounds are proprietary. They’re not going to sell their farm for $30.

 

[NiwradND]

There probably isn't much difference now days between oils that meet dexos1/Gen 3 oils. Any oil meeting that spec is very good oil.

 

[Astro14]

Then shouldn't manufacturers and testing labs start reporting on these things?

???

What do you think certifications and approvals are?

Why do you think HPL, for example, has a big lab full of equipment to do testing?

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

SHOTS FIRED SHOTS FIRED

Pfft. Fake news.

 

[buster]

Then shouldn't manufacturers and testing labs start reporting on these things?

No. The oil requirement comes full circle back around to a simple idea: it either meets specifications or it doesn't. There are up to 18 different components in some oils, you're not going to be privy to what those are.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

Those oils operate outside the approved market based products and all have a SA level well over 1.0. HPL is probably near 1.5 for SA in some of their oils.

So SA is like gluten? When you remove it the final product doesn’t taste as good?

 

[ZZman]

No. The oil requirement comes full circle back around to a simple idea: it either meets specifications or it doesn't. There are up to 18 different components in some oils, you're not going to be privy to what those are.

Maybe oil analysis reports shouldn't include any add pack info if it really isn't important.

 

[buster]

Maybe oil analysis reports shouldn't include any add pack info if it really isn't important.

Oil analysis reports are good for trending wear and viscosity, not determining an oils entire composition. The additive systems have changed over the years. I know people get excited when they see high levels of additives, but it's not always indicative of performance.

Red Line was/is highly additized and could barely pass the TEOST test.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

Maybe oil analysis reports shouldn't include any add pack info if it really isn't important.

Fair point. But when they test an oil for the wear metals and coolant or dirt, they also collect all of the elemental information. They share that with the customer.

As most sensible people have said here many times, the actual certification is what matters; if two oils have the same certifications there will not be any statistically different result from their use regardless of what the add pack may show, because the certification determines the minimum real-world performance which is not necessarily dependent on a given additive content but the overall performance of the finished product!

 

[TiGeo]

This is like PF adding up the various elements typical in additive packages and saying the one with the most "wins" - it's why folks here get upset about it b/c as is mentioned above, it's not the whole story w/r to performance etc. UOAs are good for setting trends for your engine and don't provide detail on which oil is better than another...ok the viscosity info can be pretty useful w/r to that though...

 

[TiGeo]

Fair point. But when they test an oil for the wear metals and coolant or dirt, they also collect all of the elemental information. They share that with the customer.

As most sensible people have said here many times, the actual certification is what matters; if two oils have the same certifications there will not be any statistically different result from their use regardless of what the add pack may show, because the certification determines the minimum real-world performance which is not necessarily dependent on a given additive content but the overall performance of the finished product!

Agreed 100%.

However....that is the crux w/r to the oils that don't have those certs/approvals/licenses...

 

[TiGeo]

So does oil 1 with 50ppm moly "perform" better than oil 2 with 750ppm of moly? Is moly one that you can say more is better?

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

Agreed 100%.

However....that is the crux w/r to the oils that don't have those certs/approvals/licenses...

Agree on those that don’t. Most companies are a guess as to if their formulations “meet or exceed” the requirements in the real world.

One thing that’s been really interesting to me is that HPL has been pretty open in the fact that they essentially tell us “we take approved add packs that meet VW or d1G3 requirements, and add them to better base oils to come up with a finished product that exceeds all certification requirements.” So yes, they’re not “licensed or certified” but we do have confirmation that they’re using tested, qualified, and approved add packs that provide a layer of comfort that their product will deliver what is promised.