PQIA's Synthetics - Part Three
- Thread starter martinq
- Start date
- Status
MolaKule
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Topo
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: Topo
I'm talking about there SL Rated Version with Synerlec, prior to coming out with a SN version. Not their racing oils.
http://www.pqiamerica.com/November 2011 samples/RoyalPurple.htm
Thanks, decent Noak. Great TBN..Never understood what's up with all the sulfur though.
Look at their detergent/Dispersant components:
Calcium 2,051 Magnesium 2,271
This come from Calcium and Magnesium Sulfonates.
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: Topo
I'm talking about there SL Rated Version with Synerlec, prior to coming out with a SN version. Not their racing oils.
http://www.pqiamerica.com/November 2011 samples/RoyalPurple.htm
Thanks, decent Noak. Great TBN..Never understood what's up with all the sulfur though.
Look at their detergent/Dispersant components:
Calcium 2,051 Magnesium 2,271
This come from Calcium and Magnesium Sulfonates.
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: Topo
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: Topo
I'm talking about there SL Rated Version with Synerlec, prior to coming out with a SN version. Not their racing oils.
http://www.pqiamerica.com/November 2011 samples/RoyalPurple.htm
Thanks, decent Noak. Great TBN..Never understood what's up with all the sulfur though.
Look at their detergent/Dispersant components:
Calcium 2,051 Magnesium 2,271
This come from Calcium and Magnesium Sulfonates.
Thanks for the info! So the Sulfur is not from an EP add?
Originally Posted By: Topo
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: Topo
I'm talking about there SL Rated Version with Synerlec, prior to coming out with a SN version. Not their racing oils.
http://www.pqiamerica.com/November 2011 samples/RoyalPurple.htm
Thanks, decent Noak. Great TBN..Never understood what's up with all the sulfur though.
Look at their detergent/Dispersant components:
Calcium 2,051 Magnesium 2,271
This come from Calcium and Magnesium Sulfonates.
Thanks for the info! So the Sulfur is not from an EP add?
So they Don't test Redline or Amsoil, hmm what's up with that?
I gotta tell ya... I don't see much of a difference when compared to the conventional counterparts.
Other than -30 Vis. and lower NOACK numbers there doesn't seem to be much difference. I guess you could say Synthetics have a slightly higher average TBN but it is slightly, not as much as I was expecting for sure.
Other than -30 Vis. and lower NOACK numbers there doesn't seem to be much difference. I guess you could say Synthetics have a slightly higher average TBN but it is slightly, not as much as I was expecting for sure.
MolaKule
Staff member
Quote:
So the Sulfur is not from an EP add?
They don't use EP additives in engine oils.
Some of the sulfur originates with the anti-wear/anti-oxidant ZDDP.
So the Sulfur is not from an EP add?
They don't use EP additives in engine oils.
Some of the sulfur originates with the anti-wear/anti-oxidant ZDDP.
Originally Posted By: RamFan
I gotta tell ya... I don't see much of a difference when compared to the conventional counterparts.
Other than -30 Vis. and lower NOACK numbers there doesn't seem to be much difference. I guess you could say Synthetics have a slightly higher average TBN but it is slightly, not as much as I was expecting for sure.
When I see them test some real synthetics and they come out the same, I would agree with you 100. I really would like to see Redline and Amsoil in the test, and I find it troubling they decided to omit them since they are top of the heap oils. I hope it wasn't intentional. Other then RP what oil did they test that was synthetic? My own personal theory of RP was designed for increased fuel mileage and HP and not necessarily protection. I might get flamed, but that was the result on gear tv when they dino'd RP in the engine and tranny and ended up with considerable HP gains over conventional oil. I will be more convinced in your statement if I see the tests on true group 4/5. I am glad this is coming up now, maybe we all were sold a bill of goods on synthetic.
One other thing troubled me, did everyone notice the absence of Molly is so many oils? What's up with that. Bring me into the loop, I don't post that often.
I gotta tell ya... I don't see much of a difference when compared to the conventional counterparts.
Other than -30 Vis. and lower NOACK numbers there doesn't seem to be much difference. I guess you could say Synthetics have a slightly higher average TBN but it is slightly, not as much as I was expecting for sure.
When I see them test some real synthetics and they come out the same, I would agree with you 100. I really would like to see Redline and Amsoil in the test, and I find it troubling they decided to omit them since they are top of the heap oils. I hope it wasn't intentional. Other then RP what oil did they test that was synthetic? My own personal theory of RP was designed for increased fuel mileage and HP and not necessarily protection. I might get flamed, but that was the result on gear tv when they dino'd RP in the engine and tranny and ended up with considerable HP gains over conventional oil. I will be more convinced in your statement if I see the tests on true group 4/5. I am glad this is coming up now, maybe we all were sold a bill of goods on synthetic.
One other thing troubled me, did everyone notice the absence of Molly is so many oils? What's up with that. Bring me into the loop, I don't post that often.
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: sammy
Originally Posted By: RamFan
I gotta tell ya... I don't see much of a difference when compared to the conventional counterparts.
Other than -30 Vis. and lower NOACK numbers there doesn't seem to be much difference. I guess you could say Synthetics have a slightly higher average TBN but it is slightly, not as much as I was expecting for sure.
When I see them test some real synthetics and they come out the same, I would agree with you 100. I really would like to see Redline and Amsoil in the test, and I find it troubling they decided to omit them since they are top of the heap oils. I hope it wasn't intentional. Other then RP what oil did they test that was synthetic? My own personal theory of RP was designed for increased fuel mileage and HP and not necessarily protection. I might get flamed, but that was the result on gear tv when they dino'd RP in the engine and tranny and ended up with considerable HP gains over conventional oil. I will be more convinced in your statement if I see the tests on true group 4/5. I am glad this is coming up now, maybe we all were sold a bill of goods on synthetic.
One other thing troubled me, did everyone notice the absence of Molly is so many oils? What's up with that. Bring me into the loop, I don't post that often.
I'm not sure what you guys expect to "see" exactly? The higher flash point, lower NOACK and lower pour points/cold temp performance are the advantages synthetics have. You aren't going to see anything magical on these VOA's to otherwise sets them apart from their conventional counterparts. The advantages of synthetics are increased tolerance to extreme heat and better performance in the extreme cold. They are usually also less volatile. That's it. That's the advantage list in a nutshell.
And the reason Redline wasn't tested would likely be because it isn't an API-approved lubricant and isn't seen on store shelves. You'll likely also only see the API versions (OE and XL) of AMSOIL tested as well for the same reason.
BTW, Dyno TV's results were the resulted they "expected". Chew on that if you think the results were an actual representation of increased power output.
Think sponsorship.....
And nobody is being sold a "bill of goods" on synthetics. If you have a car that requires them, like I do, then you use them. If you have an engine that isn't hard on oil and doesn't require a synthetic, you are likely wasting your money unless you are extending your drain intervals.
Originally Posted By: RamFan
I gotta tell ya... I don't see much of a difference when compared to the conventional counterparts.
Other than -30 Vis. and lower NOACK numbers there doesn't seem to be much difference. I guess you could say Synthetics have a slightly higher average TBN but it is slightly, not as much as I was expecting for sure.
When I see them test some real synthetics and they come out the same, I would agree with you 100. I really would like to see Redline and Amsoil in the test, and I find it troubling they decided to omit them since they are top of the heap oils. I hope it wasn't intentional. Other then RP what oil did they test that was synthetic? My own personal theory of RP was designed for increased fuel mileage and HP and not necessarily protection. I might get flamed, but that was the result on gear tv when they dino'd RP in the engine and tranny and ended up with considerable HP gains over conventional oil. I will be more convinced in your statement if I see the tests on true group 4/5. I am glad this is coming up now, maybe we all were sold a bill of goods on synthetic.
One other thing troubled me, did everyone notice the absence of Molly is so many oils? What's up with that. Bring me into the loop, I don't post that often.
I'm not sure what you guys expect to "see" exactly? The higher flash point, lower NOACK and lower pour points/cold temp performance are the advantages synthetics have. You aren't going to see anything magical on these VOA's to otherwise sets them apart from their conventional counterparts. The advantages of synthetics are increased tolerance to extreme heat and better performance in the extreme cold. They are usually also less volatile. That's it. That's the advantage list in a nutshell.
And the reason Redline wasn't tested would likely be because it isn't an API-approved lubricant and isn't seen on store shelves. You'll likely also only see the API versions (OE and XL) of AMSOIL tested as well for the same reason.
BTW, Dyno TV's results were the resulted they "expected". Chew on that if you think the results were an actual representation of increased power output.
And nobody is being sold a "bill of goods" on synthetics. If you have a car that requires them, like I do, then you use them. If you have an engine that isn't hard on oil and doesn't require a synthetic, you are likely wasting your money unless you are extending your drain intervals.
MolaKule
Staff member
Quote:
I will be more convinced in your statement if I see the tests on true group 4/5. I am glad this is coming up now, maybe we all were sold a bill of goods on synthetic.
Most so-called synthetics these days are a mixture of GroupIII, IV, and V oils made up of various viscosities of these three to get the correct viscosity range, performance, and costs.
I will be more convinced in your statement if I see the tests on true group 4/5. I am glad this is coming up now, maybe we all were sold a bill of goods on synthetic.
Most so-called synthetics these days are a mixture of GroupIII, IV, and V oils made up of various viscosities of these three to get the correct viscosity range, performance, and costs.
Last edited:
^+1 Exactly.
How you get there varies on a lot of things. OEM and industry specifications are the barometer used to validate performance. Anything else, is speculation.
This is why they have specifications and standards. Everything else (VOA's, UOA's etc) are secondary tools and nothing more.
How you get there varies on a lot of things. OEM and industry specifications are the barometer used to validate performance. Anything else, is speculation.
This is why they have specifications and standards. Everything else (VOA's, UOA's etc) are secondary tools and nothing more.
Originally Posted By: sammy
So they Don't test Redline or Amsoil, hmm what's up with that?
PQIA purchases oils from retail shelves. Redline is difficult to find on store shelves. Amsoil SSO was tested last year, but is also difficult to find on shelves. Neither brand was intentionally omitted.
Amsoil SSO
Tom NJ
So they Don't test Redline or Amsoil, hmm what's up with that?
PQIA purchases oils from retail shelves. Redline is difficult to find on store shelves. Amsoil SSO was tested last year, but is also difficult to find on shelves. Neither brand was intentionally omitted.
Amsoil SSO
Tom NJ
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: buster
OEM and industry specifications are the barometer used to validate performance. Anything else, is speculation.
And is that not exactly what I've been preaching lately as my benchmark?
This is why we know oils like M1 0w-40, PU Euro 5w-40 and their ilk are as good as they are. Not only do they happen to have excellent paper specs, but the arm-long lists of certs and approvals are a GUARANTEE as to a particular level of performance.
OEM and industry specifications are the barometer used to validate performance. Anything else, is speculation.
And is that not exactly what I've been preaching lately as my benchmark?
This is why we know oils like M1 0w-40, PU Euro 5w-40 and their ilk are as good as they are. Not only do they happen to have excellent paper specs, but the arm-long lists of certs and approvals are a GUARANTEE as to a particular level of performance.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: RamFan
I would have liked to see higher average TBN and a lower 40* viscosity wouldn't have been bad either.
The low and mid-SAPS oils have a lower initial TBN. But their TBN retention is superior in many (most) instances to the oils they replaced. Organic additives are getting to be quite popular, so an insanely high starting TBN may not be required as TBN persistence has improved.
And you aren't going to see any higher visc spreads between the 100C and 40C values unless we start seeing oils with even higher VI's. And that of course will negatively effect the volatility (NOACK and FP) of the oils. There's a relationship there.
I would have liked to see higher average TBN and a lower 40* viscosity wouldn't have been bad either.
The low and mid-SAPS oils have a lower initial TBN. But their TBN retention is superior in many (most) instances to the oils they replaced. Organic additives are getting to be quite popular, so an insanely high starting TBN may not be required as TBN persistence has improved.
And you aren't going to see any higher visc spreads between the 100C and 40C values unless we start seeing oils with even higher VI's. And that of course will negatively effect the volatility (NOACK and FP) of the oils. There's a relationship there.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: buster
OEM and industry specifications are the barometer used to validate performance. Anything else, is speculation.
And is that not exactly what I've been preaching lately as my benchmark?
This is why we know oils like M1 0w-40, PU Euro 5w-40 and their ilk are as good as they are. Not only do they happen to have excellent paper specs, but the arm-long lists of certs and approvals are a GUARANTEE as to a particular level of performance.
+1
Originally Posted By: buster
OEM and industry specifications are the barometer used to validate performance. Anything else, is speculation.
And is that not exactly what I've been preaching lately as my benchmark?
This is why we know oils like M1 0w-40, PU Euro 5w-40 and their ilk are as good as they are. Not only do they happen to have excellent paper specs, but the arm-long lists of certs and approvals are a GUARANTEE as to a particular level of performance.
+1
Perfect example:
http://www.mobil.com/USA-English/Lubes/PDS/GLXXENPVLMOMobil_1_ESP_Formula_5W-30.aspx
Looks anemic from a VOA, but meets Porsche C30 spec.
http://www.mobil.com/USA-English/Lubes/PDS/GLXXENPVLMOMobil_1_ESP_Formula_5W-30.aspx
Looks anemic from a VOA, but meets Porsche C30 spec.
Originally Posted By: buster
Perfect example:
http://www.mobil.com/USA-English/Lubes/PDS/GLXXENPVLMOMobil_1_ESP_Formula_5W-30.aspx
Looks anemic from a VOA, but meets Porsche C30 spec.
Good point.
Perfect example:
http://www.mobil.com/USA-English/Lubes/PDS/GLXXENPVLMOMobil_1_ESP_Formula_5W-30.aspx
Looks anemic from a VOA, but meets Porsche C30 spec.
Good point.
I agree with Dnewton, they pretty much numbers...
And people tend to forget that is it also varies widely the the engines you have too....and the usual city/highway driving...
In some DI engines I'd almost be afraid to run a syn over 5k, while my simple engine like my ecotecs could run 6k easy on a dino with no issues..
And people tend to forget that is it also varies widely the the engines you have too....and the usual city/highway driving...
In some DI engines I'd almost be afraid to run a syn over 5k, while my simple engine like my ecotecs could run 6k easy on a dino with no issues..
Originally Posted By: sammy
One other thing troubled me, did everyone notice the absence of Molly is so many oils? What's up with that. Bring me into the loop, I don't post that often.
I'm sure Mola could explain this much better, but the newer type of moly additive requires much lower concentrations to be effective. I also suspect the newer type is significantly more expensive, because it tends to be seen in synthetics.
One other thing troubled me, did everyone notice the absence of Molly is so many oils? What's up with that. Bring me into the loop, I don't post that often.
I'm sure Mola could explain this much better, but the newer type of moly additive requires much lower concentrations to be effective. I also suspect the newer type is significantly more expensive, because it tends to be seen in synthetics.
thanks Tom, very interesting.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked