PQIA does another round of synthetics
- Thread starter Tom NJ
- Start date
- Status
Apparently there is an "Orange Bottle of Doom" LOL.
It doesn't appear to be anything special. Actually, it looks pretty much below average from what I can tell.
Let the trolling begin.
It doesn't appear to be anything special. Actually, it looks pretty much below average from what I can tell.
Let the trolling begin.
the traveller doesn't look to bad, my local farm store stocks a lot of this oil.
It (and many of the others) don't look special when compared to most "conventional" oils of the same viscosity and service category.
There may be some advantage in Viscosity Index. But it seems many of the so called synthetics don't have any better TBN or other numbers compared to their conventional counterparts.
I wouldn't be afraid to use them. I'm just not sure I'm getting an oil worth the premium commanded when the word synthetic is printed on the label.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
The Fram syn looks pretty similar to the other oils in the group tested.
None of these oils appear to be anything really special, although I'd feel fine using any of them based upon this series of tests.
There may be some advantage in Viscosity Index. But it seems many of the so called synthetics don't have any better TBN or other numbers compared to their conventional counterparts.
I wouldn't be afraid to use them. I'm just not sure I'm getting an oil worth the premium commanded when the word synthetic is printed on the label.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
The Fram syn looks pretty similar to the other oils in the group tested.
None of these oils appear to be anything really special, although I'd feel fine using any of them based upon this series of tests.
Fram looks similar to the Amsoil. Way to go Fram. The new sleeper oil.
I may be mistaken, but these oils as a group seem to have a lower average NOACK than would a similar group of coventional oils.
Virgin TBN isn't as important as TBN retention, but you already know that.
These oils should offer a higher VI than would a similar group of conventionals, as you noted.
The price premium for synthetics is now low enough that the difference in cost is hardly a deal breaker.
PQIA's VOAs are certainly very nice, but the true test of these or any other oil happens at the other end of its lifecycle.
These oils look okay, but a series of UOAs will show us just how okay they really are.
Virgin TBN isn't as important as TBN retention, but you already know that.
These oils should offer a higher VI than would a similar group of conventionals, as you noted.
The price premium for synthetics is now low enough that the difference in cost is hardly a deal breaker.
PQIA's VOAs are certainly very nice, but the true test of these or any other oil happens at the other end of its lifecycle.
These oils look okay, but a series of UOAs will show us just how okay they really are.
Originally Posted By: Capa
Tom, we really appreciate all of the wonderful work that PQUI is doing! I know that you cannot test every oil but are there any plans to test Mobil EP 5w30 and any of the 0W oils, which are becoming more and more common?
Sorry, but I can't reveal any testing plans for PQIA. Even the supporters don't know which oils are planned or under test so as to avoid any outside influence.
Tom NJ
Note: While I am an unpaid advisor to PQIA, I am not an employee and my comments here are my own opinions and do not necessarily represent the positions of PQIA.
Tom, we really appreciate all of the wonderful work that PQUI is doing! I know that you cannot test every oil but are there any plans to test Mobil EP 5w30 and any of the 0W oils, which are becoming more and more common?
Sorry, but I can't reveal any testing plans for PQIA. Even the supporters don't know which oils are planned or under test so as to avoid any outside influence.
Tom NJ
Note: While I am an unpaid advisor to PQIA, I am not an employee and my comments here are my own opinions and do not necessarily represent the positions of PQIA.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
I may be mistaken, but these oils as a group seem to have a lower average NOACK than would a similar group of coventional oils.
Virgin TBN isn't as important as TBN retention, but you already know that.
These oils should offer a higher VI than would a similar group of conventionals, as you noted.
The price premium for synthetics is now low enough that the difference in cost is hardly a deal breaker.
PQIA's VOAs are certainly very nice, but the true test of these or any other oil happens at the other end of its lifecycle.
These oils look okay, but a series of UOAs will show us just how okay they really are.
Nice summary
I would add that ENEOS appears to be the best when it comes to the combo of high VI and low Noack. It's also one of the thinnest oils.
I may be mistaken, but these oils as a group seem to have a lower average NOACK than would a similar group of coventional oils.
Virgin TBN isn't as important as TBN retention, but you already know that.
These oils should offer a higher VI than would a similar group of conventionals, as you noted.
The price premium for synthetics is now low enough that the difference in cost is hardly a deal breaker.
PQIA's VOAs are certainly very nice, but the true test of these or any other oil happens at the other end of its lifecycle.
These oils look okay, but a series of UOAs will show us just how okay they really are.
Nice summary
I would add that ENEOS appears to be the best when it comes to the combo of high VI and low Noack. It's also one of the thinnest oils.
Originally Posted By: FoxS
I would add that ENEOS appears to be the best when it comes to the combo of high VI and low Noack. It's also one of the thinnest oils.
Was going to say the same. It's also the only one of this batch that has a double-shot of moly.
They seem to have dropped the link for the collected results. Here's what they had up to March.
http://www.pqiamerica.com/March2013PCMO/Marchsyntheticsallfinal.html
I would add that ENEOS appears to be the best when it comes to the combo of high VI and low Noack. It's also one of the thinnest oils.
Was going to say the same. It's also the only one of this batch that has a double-shot of moly.
They seem to have dropped the link for the collected results. Here's what they had up to March.
http://www.pqiamerica.com/March2013PCMO/Marchsyntheticsallfinal.html
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Gabe
I think these results really highlight how misleading the VI can be.
Yeah, it's a tough call. I'd be more interested in seeing the only the HTHS, NOACK and the D5293 (Cold Crank) numbers as far as viscosity is concerned. Other measurements are becoming less important (I think) as the newer specs have come online. It's tough to make a poor performing product that meets current specs.
I think these results really highlight how misleading the VI can be.
Yeah, it's a tough call. I'd be more interested in seeing the only the HTHS, NOACK and the D5293 (Cold Crank) numbers as far as viscosity is concerned. Other measurements are becoming less important (I think) as the newer specs have come online. It's tough to make a poor performing product that meets current specs.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Gabe
We REALLY appreciate what PQIA is doing for the industry.
Me too!!!
We REALLY appreciate what PQIA is doing for the industry.
Me too!!!
Originally Posted By: Ibrahim
Originally Posted By: Gabe
We REALLY appreciate what PQIA is doing for the industry.
Me too!!!
+1
Originally Posted By: Gabe
We REALLY appreciate what PQIA is doing for the industry.
Me too!!!
+1
MolaKule
Staff member
It also appears that a bulk oil was tested as well, Silogram, and was not as it appears and contains a high level of silicon true to its name.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
