That's the whole name of the game and I believe the only legit use for synth oils, when you need it to flow in the extreme cold (for a turbo), but then need it to not thin down too far once you reach operating temp. Yes, some oils are designed to this as well as possible, but it's just too easy for me to select products seasonally to get the best result.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Pennzoil Ultra 5W-40 Euro
- Thread starter Big Dave
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Well, after about 6 weeks mine arrived today. Thanks Debbie and Pennzoil, now please just get somebody to carry it! There has to be a chain out there that wants to carry the only US Ferrari approved oil.
I think I'm going to email/call Autozone and request they drop the Syntec 0w-30 and 5w-40 for this since it meets the specs of both...
I think I'm going to email/call Autozone and request they drop the Syntec 0w-30 and 5w-40 for this since it meets the specs of both...
I just use a manufacturer's approved oil changed at the recommended interval. I have yet to suffer an engine oil related failure of any kind on the 10 vehicles I have owned over the past 25 years.
Originally Posted By: cycloxer
I just use a manufacturer's approved oil changed at the recommended interval. I have yet to suffer an engine oil related failure of any kind on the 10 vehicles I have owned over the past 25 years.
Buy yourself a 2.0T FSI Audi/VW motor. Run 10k interval on 502.00 oil. Post cam follower pics.
I just use a manufacturer's approved oil changed at the recommended interval. I have yet to suffer an engine oil related failure of any kind on the 10 vehicles I have owned over the past 25 years.
Buy yourself a 2.0T FSI Audi/VW motor. Run 10k interval on 502.00 oil. Post cam follower pics.
Yes and no. It's really a big problem in the states and how the "synthetics" like Castrol (Group III) react to the high amounts of sulfur in American fuel. Fuel dilution is far more an issue with our oils than the Group IV oils like Lubro Moly that are commonly run in Europe. The excessive wear is related mostly to that fuel dilution decreasing viscosity.
In the US running Castrol, for example, on the factory 10k OCI you can expect cam follower wear to become too much after 40k miles or so. Now, mind you I'm generalizing here but it seems to be around the magic number. I change mine every 30k.
When I lived in Switzerland, the guys in my VW club there couldn't believe the problems we Americans are having with the 2.0T motor. The VW dealership by my dorm used Lubro Moly 5w-40 as their oil, as well as most of the guys in the club. Some of the cars had over 100k KMs on them with minimal wear to cam followers and cams - even on the softer Revision A cams. That is one of the main things keeping me running Lubro Moly in my 2.0T. I use my 2.5 Jetta as my test bed for oils (though AJ has gotten me thinking about what else the 2.0T may like).
So yes, it is a design flaw, but I think it's more related to the longer OCIs the American cars call for, combined with the lower quality oil and fuel.
I'm debating what car this Ultra should go in. It could be what the 2.0T loves - but for the price I can get Lubro Moly and a filter shipped.
Furthermore, the problem is really with the FSI engines that use a flat tappet cam system. The corrected the design flaw with the TSI motors by using a roller system.
In the US running Castrol, for example, on the factory 10k OCI you can expect cam follower wear to become too much after 40k miles or so. Now, mind you I'm generalizing here but it seems to be around the magic number. I change mine every 30k.
When I lived in Switzerland, the guys in my VW club there couldn't believe the problems we Americans are having with the 2.0T motor. The VW dealership by my dorm used Lubro Moly 5w-40 as their oil, as well as most of the guys in the club. Some of the cars had over 100k KMs on them with minimal wear to cam followers and cams - even on the softer Revision A cams. That is one of the main things keeping me running Lubro Moly in my 2.0T. I use my 2.5 Jetta as my test bed for oils (though AJ has gotten me thinking about what else the 2.0T may like).
So yes, it is a design flaw, but I think it's more related to the longer OCIs the American cars call for, combined with the lower quality oil and fuel.
I'm debating what car this Ultra should go in. It could be what the 2.0T loves - but for the price I can get Lubro Moly and a filter shipped.
Furthermore, the problem is really with the FSI engines that use a flat tappet cam system. The corrected the design flaw with the TSI motors by using a roller system.
Last edited:
I would say it's more a combination. VW did screw up - and there is no going around that. The design of the HPFP using the cam follower is/was a bad design made with metals that were too soft. The fact that they have done TSBs about it - but never a recall really ticks me off.
The combination of the US OCI (10000 miles), with our poorer quality fuel and oil just exasperates the problem.
With a reasonable OCI (like 5000 miles) and a solid oil like Lubro Moly, Pentosin, I'm hoping PU, Motul and the like - one should be able to go much longer before the can follower issue strikes.
I have one friend with 102k miles on an 06 2.0T. He changed his oil every 3000 miles with Motul, Pentosin, or Lubro Moly (bought online) and when he pulled the cam follower at ~97k it still looked "ok". Granted it needed to be replaced, but that kind of mileage is typically unheard of before needing to replace the cam follower.
I've seem them go out as early as 30k miles on recommended OCI with dealership oil changes. VW Pays for an oil change every 10k miles and most people only do that.
The problem also existed on the PD TDI diesel engines - but there are far more 2.0Ts running around so you hear about it in the gas motor more commonly.
The combination of the US OCI (10000 miles), with our poorer quality fuel and oil just exasperates the problem.
With a reasonable OCI (like 5000 miles) and a solid oil like Lubro Moly, Pentosin, I'm hoping PU, Motul and the like - one should be able to go much longer before the can follower issue strikes.
I have one friend with 102k miles on an 06 2.0T. He changed his oil every 3000 miles with Motul, Pentosin, or Lubro Moly (bought online) and when he pulled the cam follower at ~97k it still looked "ok". Granted it needed to be replaced, but that kind of mileage is typically unheard of before needing to replace the cam follower.
I've seem them go out as early as 30k miles on recommended OCI with dealership oil changes. VW Pays for an oil change every 10k miles and most people only do that.
The problem also existed on the PD TDI diesel engines - but there are far more 2.0Ts running around so you hear about it in the gas motor more commonly.
It's a design error inasmuch as the design works with the proper oil and oci. The fault is how AoA does their oil servicing and anticipates conditions in the USA, such as short trips, poor fuel quality and bad ownership practice with changes and topping off.
It's reported that cam followers failed on Mobil 1 0w-40 at 5k, but HD oils like Rotella did MUCH better.
To clarify another thing, afaik, The USA fuels react poorly with the new VW 504/507 oils, which the spec looks great on paper, but have low additives and are other-than Groupe III.
It's pretty annoying to hear strident arguments that "VW engineers know best" and "you think you know better" and such. These arguments are driven by a lack of understanding of the specs and engines themselves, and a blind deference to mythical "VW engineers", whom are imagined to be all-knowing and all-seeing and have the 2nd or 3rd owners' interest in mind.
It's reported that cam followers failed on Mobil 1 0w-40 at 5k, but HD oils like Rotella did MUCH better.
To clarify another thing, afaik, The USA fuels react poorly with the new VW 504/507 oils, which the spec looks great on paper, but have low additives and are other-than Groupe III.
It's pretty annoying to hear strident arguments that "VW engineers know best" and "you think you know better" and such. These arguments are driven by a lack of understanding of the specs and engines themselves, and a blind deference to mythical "VW engineers", whom are imagined to be all-knowing and all-seeing and have the 2nd or 3rd owners' interest in mind.
That is crazy on the 2.0T's. Sounds like VW botched the design. I have owned three 1.8T's and a vr6 with 215k, all with no problems.
We're getting off topic, but I have a female friend w/a A4 1.8t who asked the corner garage to do "synthetic" or "Mobil 1" changes for her. Of course the engine sludged anyway. That garage is a rip-off. However, many owners would blame the mfg instead of the trusted garage.
cryption said:Yes and no. It's really a big problem in the states and how the "synthetics" like Castrol (Group III) react to the high amounts of sulfur in American fuel. Fuel dilution is far more an issue with our oils than the Group IV oils like Lubro Moly that are commonly run in Europe.
Very interesting......can you back up this statement? ( I assume that you are stating that Group IV oils are superior in delaing with fuel dilution and high sulphur)
Also note that not all 5w-40 Lubro Molys are Group IV synthetics and neither is any Shell Helix Ultra and its Penzoil equvalent.
Additionally if these oils are so wanderful why don't they have contemporary Manufacurer's Approvals ( ie BMW Longlife 01)?
I have not had a problem using Castrol Syntec 5W-40 in any of my 1.8T's. It is more than adequate if it is changed at the proper interval and used in conjunction with the proper filter.
For that matter, I used cheapo $2 5W-30 in my VR6 GTI for all 215k miles and also never had a problem.
So, IMHO, is Ultra a better oil? Yes. Is it necessary? No.
I should add, no oil is going to save those early 2.0T's. VW porked the design. It is not an oil problem.
For that matter, I used cheapo $2 5W-30 in my VR6 GTI for all 215k miles and also never had a problem.
So, IMHO, is Ultra a better oil? Yes. Is it necessary? No.
I should add, no oil is going to save those early 2.0T's. VW porked the design. It is not an oil problem.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
To clarify another thing, afaik, The USA fuels react poorly with the new VW 504/507 oils, which the spec looks great on paper, but have low additives and are other-than Groupe III.
It's pretty annoying to hear strident arguments that "VW engineers know best" and "you think you know better" and such. These arguments are driven by a lack of understanding of the specs and engines themselves, and a blind deference to mythical "VW engineers", whom are imagined to be all-knowing and all-seeing and have the 2nd or 3rd owners' interest in mind.
On the other hand, how do ANY of us know exactly what additives are now in play with the latest partially non-metal based additives, that don't appear in the VOA/UOA test regimens? How do we know what the REAL TBN is for instance, when we only see the metals and not the non-metal package to counter acid growth?
I think that you raise some logical questions, but I ALSO think that there are many of us "outsiders" who truly have no clue as to the effectiveness of the newer oils in this environment, other than what we see in VOA and UOA and it all looks like an "oh [censored]" moment because we are only seeing PART of the package of the new oils.
Until and unless we get very CLEAR and unambiguous actual measured wear patterns under comparative conditions, for 504 type oils vs. say, 502 oils....NONE of us is really any the wiser. And THAT is the incredibly frustrating thing for all of us.
To clarify another thing, afaik, The USA fuels react poorly with the new VW 504/507 oils, which the spec looks great on paper, but have low additives and are other-than Groupe III.
It's pretty annoying to hear strident arguments that "VW engineers know best" and "you think you know better" and such. These arguments are driven by a lack of understanding of the specs and engines themselves, and a blind deference to mythical "VW engineers", whom are imagined to be all-knowing and all-seeing and have the 2nd or 3rd owners' interest in mind.
On the other hand, how do ANY of us know exactly what additives are now in play with the latest partially non-metal based additives, that don't appear in the VOA/UOA test regimens? How do we know what the REAL TBN is for instance, when we only see the metals and not the non-metal package to counter acid growth?
I think that you raise some logical questions, but I ALSO think that there are many of us "outsiders" who truly have no clue as to the effectiveness of the newer oils in this environment, other than what we see in VOA and UOA and it all looks like an "oh [censored]" moment because we are only seeing PART of the package of the new oils.
Until and unless we get very CLEAR and unambiguous actual measured wear patterns under comparative conditions, for 504 type oils vs. say, 502 oils....NONE of us is really any the wiser. And THAT is the incredibly frustrating thing for all of us.
Originally Posted By: OldBaldy
On the other hand, how do ANY of us know exactly what additives are now in play with the latest partially non-metal based additives, that don't appear in the VOA/UOA test regimens? How do we know what the REAL TBN is for instance, when we only see the metals and not the non-metal package to counter acid growth?
I think that you raise some logical questions, but I ALSO think that there are many of us "outsiders" who truly have no clue as to the effectiveness of the newer oils in this environment, other than what we see in VOA and UOA and it all looks like an "oh [censored]" moment because we are only seeing PART of the package of the new oils.
Until and unless we get very CLEAR and unambiguous actual measured wear patterns under comparative conditions, for 504 type oils vs. say, 502 oils....NONE of us is really any the wiser. And THAT is the incredibly frustrating thing for all of us.
Bingo.
We are biased favorably, but uninformed. The automakers are highly informed, but might be biased unfavorably. Rock, meet hard place.
On the other hand, how do ANY of us know exactly what additives are now in play with the latest partially non-metal based additives, that don't appear in the VOA/UOA test regimens? How do we know what the REAL TBN is for instance, when we only see the metals and not the non-metal package to counter acid growth?
I think that you raise some logical questions, but I ALSO think that there are many of us "outsiders" who truly have no clue as to the effectiveness of the newer oils in this environment, other than what we see in VOA and UOA and it all looks like an "oh [censored]" moment because we are only seeing PART of the package of the new oils.
Until and unless we get very CLEAR and unambiguous actual measured wear patterns under comparative conditions, for 504 type oils vs. say, 502 oils....NONE of us is really any the wiser. And THAT is the incredibly frustrating thing for all of us.
Bingo.
We are biased favorably, but uninformed. The automakers are highly informed, but might be biased unfavorably. Rock, meet hard place.
Well, BMW has advised against the new LL-04 oils in the USA and my 2010 VW manual calls not for VW 504, but 502, BUT isn't the wear rate looking bad with the 504 oils?
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
BUT isn't the wear rate looking bad with the 504 oils?
I don't know - is it? Do we have enough direct comparisons anywhere to try to conclude something one way or the other?
BUT isn't the wear rate looking bad with the 504 oils?
I don't know - is it? Do we have enough direct comparisons anywhere to try to conclude something one way or the other?
Anyone notice that the PU 5W-30 and the 5W-40 have identical HTHS? Seems odd. I'm starting to wonder if Sopus don't have their PDS docs screwed up on the web.
What?
PU 5W-30 HT/HS is 3.1 from the March 2010 TDS.
PU 5W-40 HT/HS is 3.68 from its March 2010 TDS.
3.5 is the minimum requirement to meet ACEA A3.
PU 5W-30 HT/HS is 3.1 from the March 2010 TDS.
PU 5W-40 HT/HS is 3.68 from its March 2010 TDS.
3.5 is the minimum requirement to meet ACEA A3.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 52
- Views
- 5K
- Replies
- 24
- Views
- 4K
- Replies
- 130
- Views
- 8K