QS dino 5w-20 @ 7.5k; Ford 2.5L @ 30k
- Thread starter dnewton3
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
In what way do you believe Valvoline to be "inferior". (Not being an agitator; it's just that I'm unclear as to what point you were inferring. TBN?)
TBN is what I am curious about. From the Valvoline reports I have seen, it appears that their TBN retention is incredibly weak across their lines (Conventional, Maxlife and SynPower) compared to the other majors.
In what way do you believe Valvoline to be "inferior". (Not being an agitator; it's just that I'm unclear as to what point you were inferring. TBN?)
TBN is what I am curious about. From the Valvoline reports I have seen, it appears that their TBN retention is incredibly weak across their lines (Conventional, Maxlife and SynPower) compared to the other majors.
mwball0 said:
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: mwball0
Someone tell me! With results like this what's the purpose of spending the extra$ for full synthetic?
The purpose would be extended OCIs. I do believe, at some point, the abilities of typical dino oils would be overcome by benefits of the better base stock and add-pack of a syn. However, with results like this of mine, it would have to be a pretty darn far distance. I would think that 10k miles on the QSGB dino would be reasonable in my circumstances. That means I'd have to be able to get at least 30k miles out of a syn just to break even on the investment (seeking the ROI with syn generally costing 3x more money than dino).
There is never a "best" oil for everything; just can't be done if you take into account all aspects of reality. But what one can find is the "best fit" for a particular set of circumstances. Read my signature line; I think I state it quite well.
Someone tell me! With results like this what's the purpose of spending the extra$ for full synthetic?
The purpose would be extended OCIs. I do believe, at some point, the abilities of typical dino oils would be overcome by benefits of the better base stock and add-pack of a syn. However, with results like this of mine, it would have to be a pretty darn far distance. I would think that 10k miles on the QSGB dino would be reasonable in my circumstances. That means I'd have to be able to get at least 30k miles out of a syn just to break even on the investment (seeking the ROI with syn generally costing 3x more money than dino).
There is never a "best" oil for everything; just can't be done if you take into account all aspects of reality. But what one can find is the "best fit" for a particular set of circumstances. Read my signature line; I think I state it quite well.
Last edited:
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: The Critic
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
In what way do you believe Valvoline to be "inferior". (Not being an agitator; it's just that I'm unclear as to what point you were inferring. TBN?)
TBN is what I am curious about. From the Valvoline reports I have seen, it appears that their TBN retention is incredibly weak across their lines (Conventional, Maxlife and SynPower) compared to the other majors.
Well, sir, I'd be willing to assist. I would be curious to see how this played out as well. However, like I said, it's a ways off; I've got to burn through my stash of Peak I just loaded up with. And, I have other issues with many brands ...
A bit off topic ... prepare yourself mentally for the diatribe:
For me, even if the Valvoline did as well as QSGB for wear and TBN, I'd still have to see it be viable for at least 15k miles, because of the cost factor. I rarely (if ever) see Valvoline on sale in my area; it runs at least $13/gallon even with incentives and probably $17/gallon without incentives. I got the Peak for $8/gallon with rebate. Part of the issue for me personally is that I live out in the sticks, and I only get mail at a PO Box. Many of today's rebates exclude delivery to PO Boxes; that irritates the living poo out of me, as if I were some kind of second-class citizen. I have called and written Mobil, SUPUS, etc and typically get a "sorry, but that's our policy ..." response. For some reason, Peak is willing to assist me. These previous three OCIs of QSGB were purchased at Menards, and that rebate was in the form of a "merchandise credit check" rebate from Menards and not direct for QS. Therefore, Menards was willing to honor my PO Box; I shop there frequently so the "credit check" was of value to me. QS was not willing to deal with me directly. I have debated having the rebates sent to my work address, but I see two issues with that:
1) it is ethical?
2) would the personal mail get lost in the labyrinth of caos that is our internal mail service? (if the check goes AWOL, then I realize no "savings" ...)
It used to be that savings for lubes could be found at the counter upon checkout. BOGO's, mark-downs, etc, would make it worthwhile to stock up. Nowdays, about the only "sale" you find is with a rebate, and those are often laced with restrictions. This leads me to a rational conclusion that I'm seriously willing to try the Walmart branded SuperTech oils. They can be had for nearly the same costs as other brands I'd have to jump through hoops for, and all I have to do is walk in and pay a fair shelf price. Since I HIGHLY suspect ST lubes will perform very well for my "normal" OCIs, I am seriously considering some testing of them in my Fusion and my Duramax.
Hence - I simply don't buy Valvoline. It's not that I believe them to be a bad product; they simply are not willing to earn my business.
I'm ol' skool; I vote with my hands, feet and wallet.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
In what way do you believe Valvoline to be "inferior". (Not being an agitator; it's just that I'm unclear as to what point you were inferring. TBN?)
TBN is what I am curious about. From the Valvoline reports I have seen, it appears that their TBN retention is incredibly weak across their lines (Conventional, Maxlife and SynPower) compared to the other majors.
Well, sir, I'd be willing to assist. I would be curious to see how this played out as well. However, like I said, it's a ways off; I've got to burn through my stash of Peak I just loaded up with. And, I have other issues with many brands ...
A bit off topic ... prepare yourself mentally for the diatribe:
For me, even if the Valvoline did as well as QSGB for wear and TBN, I'd still have to see it be viable for at least 15k miles, because of the cost factor. I rarely (if ever) see Valvoline on sale in my area; it runs at least $13/gallon even with incentives and probably $17/gallon without incentives. I got the Peak for $8/gallon with rebate. Part of the issue for me personally is that I live out in the sticks, and I only get mail at a PO Box. Many of today's rebates exclude delivery to PO Boxes; that irritates the living poo out of me, as if I were some kind of second-class citizen. I have called and written Mobil, SUPUS, etc and typically get a "sorry, but that's our policy ..." response. For some reason, Peak is willing to assist me. These previous three OCIs of QSGB were purchased at Menards, and that rebate was in the form of a "merchandise credit check" rebate from Menards and not direct for QS. Therefore, Menards was willing to honor my PO Box; I shop there frequently so the "credit check" was of value to me. QS was not willing to deal with me directly. I have debated having the rebates sent to my work address, but I see two issues with that:
1) it is ethical?
2) would the personal mail get lost in the labyrinth of caos that is our internal mail service? (if the check goes AWOL, then I realize no "savings" ...)
It used to be that savings for lubes could be found at the counter upon checkout. BOGO's, mark-downs, etc, would make it worthwhile to stock up. Nowdays, about the only "sale" you find is with a rebate, and those are often laced with restrictions. This leads me to a rational conclusion that I'm seriously willing to try the Walmart branded SuperTech oils. They can be had for nearly the same costs as other brands I'd have to jump through hoops for, and all I have to do is walk in and pay a fair shelf price. Since I HIGHLY suspect ST lubes will perform very well for my "normal" OCIs, I am seriously considering some testing of them in my Fusion and my Duramax.
Hence - I simply don't buy Valvoline. It's not that I believe them to be a bad product; they simply are not willing to earn my business.
I'm ol' skool; I vote with my hands, feet and wallet.
Last edited:
I didnt notice it mentioned what is your driving pattern like. I've been doubting myself for using full synthetic lately but I'm having trouble somewhat breaking the habit.
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: stxonall8
I didnt notice it mentioned what is your driving pattern like.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
"Car is used 50% hwy & 50% city, give or take a little."
I didnt notice it mentioned what is your driving pattern like.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
"Car is used 50% hwy & 50% city, give or take a little."
Last edited:
My concerns with the Ford 2.5 being a flat tappet engine and not a roller cam engine are less after seeing these dino UOA's. Nice report, enjoy.
This report is more about the engine quality than the oil. I own two Duratechs and both are outstanding. The one UOA I did on the Focus two years ago had simular metal numbers, of course the TBN was better, but I was using synthetic oil. A friend just bought a 2010 Fusion I4 and loves it. He went from a 95 Caddy to the Fusion. Both of my Duratechs run great and hope to see many miles on both as I am sure you will.
Originally Posted By: ProfPS
My concerns with the Ford 2.5 being a flat tappet engine and not a roller cam engine are less after seeing these dino UOA's. Nice report, enjoy.
This is not a flat tappet design but a cam over bucket. Last for ever, well, more or less.
My concerns with the Ford 2.5 being a flat tappet engine and not a roller cam engine are less after seeing these dino UOA's. Nice report, enjoy.
This is not a flat tappet design but a cam over bucket. Last for ever, well, more or less.
Last edited:
dnewton3
Staff member
Conceptually, at the cam lobe to lifter interface, the "cam over bucket" is similar (if not the same) to "flat tappet" designs. There is no roller, and the sliding friction is separated only by a non-pressure barrier film of lube.
However, cam-over-bucket designs made for (relatively) low rpm applications have fairly low interface forces, as is the case in these engines. In fact, all of the Duratec engines in the Fusion line are cam-over-bucket design; even the V-6 units. My red-line is only 6100rpm IIRC; I would presume the v-6 units are similar? Most all of Ford's I-4 and v-6 engines are now COB (cam over bucket) now.
In today's high-perf/high-rpm motorcycle engines the COB designs do see higher forces, so their lobe-to-bucket-face contact pressures are much higher. Motorcycle engines (and those similar) can see upwards of 10,000 rpm, and some as high as 14,000 rpm or more! And yet, many of them have OEM OCIs at "normal" intervals (around 5k-8k miles) and they have valve adjustment intervals between 16k-30k miles, OEM spec dependent). Part of their ability comes from the fact that (especially in a smaller displacement engine) the parts are small, and therefore the forces needed to actuate those parts can be held lower.
Further, the old flat-tappet cam designs also had a rocker ratio to contend with. Typically those were 1.6:1 or so. They use the rocker ratio to mutiply the lift of the cam lobe. But that also magnified the force needed at the lobe/tappet interface relative to the valve spring pressure at the valve stem. If the valve spring force was 300 lbs at max lift, then the cam face has to provide 480 pounds, because it acts upon the short end of the rocker fulcrum. If you have an old muscle-car with a high perf engine, with flat-tappet cam design, and high-rpm cam capability, and couple that with mechanical lifters (which provide zero hydraulic give) then it's easy to see why older cars with flat-tappets have high cam wear. In these older engines, ZDDP is very important to reduce wear. Conversely, a cam-over-bucket design only needs a 1:1 ratio for force; it simply pushes down directly against the spring force - hence lower cam/face pressures.
Just like everything else in life, you can make some fair general statements, but to really understand the situation, you have to dig into the specifics of each sitatuion.
Yes, my engine has COB design, but I see no reason why there would be concern for the modern low-rpm COB design. It's a proven technology and it's clear from my UOA that Ford spec'd, designed and built a fluid/engine combination that works well together.
However, cam-over-bucket designs made for (relatively) low rpm applications have fairly low interface forces, as is the case in these engines. In fact, all of the Duratec engines in the Fusion line are cam-over-bucket design; even the V-6 units. My red-line is only 6100rpm IIRC; I would presume the v-6 units are similar? Most all of Ford's I-4 and v-6 engines are now COB (cam over bucket) now.
In today's high-perf/high-rpm motorcycle engines the COB designs do see higher forces, so their lobe-to-bucket-face contact pressures are much higher. Motorcycle engines (and those similar) can see upwards of 10,000 rpm, and some as high as 14,000 rpm or more! And yet, many of them have OEM OCIs at "normal" intervals (around 5k-8k miles) and they have valve adjustment intervals between 16k-30k miles, OEM spec dependent). Part of their ability comes from the fact that (especially in a smaller displacement engine) the parts are small, and therefore the forces needed to actuate those parts can be held lower.
Further, the old flat-tappet cam designs also had a rocker ratio to contend with. Typically those were 1.6:1 or so. They use the rocker ratio to mutiply the lift of the cam lobe. But that also magnified the force needed at the lobe/tappet interface relative to the valve spring pressure at the valve stem. If the valve spring force was 300 lbs at max lift, then the cam face has to provide 480 pounds, because it acts upon the short end of the rocker fulcrum. If you have an old muscle-car with a high perf engine, with flat-tappet cam design, and high-rpm cam capability, and couple that with mechanical lifters (which provide zero hydraulic give) then it's easy to see why older cars with flat-tappets have high cam wear. In these older engines, ZDDP is very important to reduce wear. Conversely, a cam-over-bucket design only needs a 1:1 ratio for force; it simply pushes down directly against the spring force - hence lower cam/face pressures.
Just like everything else in life, you can make some fair general statements, but to really understand the situation, you have to dig into the specifics of each sitatuion.
Yes, my engine has COB design, but I see no reason why there would be concern for the modern low-rpm COB design. It's a proven technology and it's clear from my UOA that Ford spec'd, designed and built a fluid/engine combination that works well together.
Last edited:
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: tig1
My two 2.0 Diesel Fords I had in the 80s had the same COB design. After 300K still runnin fine. Fewer parts to have problems with. The RL on my Fusion is 6500 RPM.
Would those have been the old Mazda 2.0L IDI that they put in the Tempo/Topaz and Escort/Lynx?
I had a 1986 diesel Tempo and a 1987 diesel Escort. They were both slugs, but would run forever.
My two 2.0 Diesel Fords I had in the 80s had the same COB design. After 300K still runnin fine. Fewer parts to have problems with. The RL on my Fusion is 6500 RPM.
Would those have been the old Mazda 2.0L IDI that they put in the Tempo/Topaz and Escort/Lynx?
I had a 1986 diesel Tempo and a 1987 diesel Escort. They were both slugs, but would run forever.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: tig1
My two 2.0 Diesel Fords I had in the 80s had the same COB design. After 300K still runnin fine. Fewer parts to have problems with. The RL on my Fusion is 6500 RPM.
Would those have been the old Mazda 2.0L IDI that they put in the Tempo/Topaz and Escort/Lynx?
I had a 1986 diesel Tempo and a 1987 diesel Escort. They were both slugs, but would run forever.
Yes! I had a 84 Tempo and a 85 Escort wagon. I owned both cars at the same time. 65 hp I believe but got 45 local and 52 hyw MPG. I did my own maint. with timing belt changes, head gasket replacement, injector pump work on the Escort. Also 7 qt oil sump with two oil filters. Oh! piston cooling as well. I also installed a block heater on both engines which helped with cold temp starts. I used M1 10-30 and I believe that helped with the starts as well.
Originally Posted By: tig1
My two 2.0 Diesel Fords I had in the 80s had the same COB design. After 300K still runnin fine. Fewer parts to have problems with. The RL on my Fusion is 6500 RPM.
Would those have been the old Mazda 2.0L IDI that they put in the Tempo/Topaz and Escort/Lynx?
I had a 1986 diesel Tempo and a 1987 diesel Escort. They were both slugs, but would run forever.
Yes! I had a 84 Tempo and a 85 Escort wagon. I owned both cars at the same time. 65 hp I believe but got 45 local and 52 hyw MPG. I did my own maint. with timing belt changes, head gasket replacement, injector pump work on the Escort. Also 7 qt oil sump with two oil filters. Oh! piston cooling as well. I also installed a block heater on both engines which helped with cold temp starts. I used M1 10-30 and I believe that helped with the starts as well.
dnewton3
Staff member
I remember my 1987 Escort well. I had it, then it went to my sister.
Yes, it got great mileage! 50mpg was no unheard of if you traveled a sane speed on the highway. Even running fast, it was good for 45mpg or so.
I also recall the day my sister drove it up the driveway and the steering wheel/column had come unbolted from the under-dash mount. She was driving it by holding the wheel in her lap! (car had perhaps 250k miles on it?) That little engine ran great, but it tended to shake the rest of the car a lot. The engine was assured to outlast the car. Back then, most cars were not the best designed or built.
I ran 15w-40 Rotella because back then, I didn't know any better, and that's what the mechanic told me to use. And man, were filter changes a mess with that over/under filter block mount ...
Yes, it got great mileage! 50mpg was no unheard of if you traveled a sane speed on the highway. Even running fast, it was good for 45mpg or so.
I also recall the day my sister drove it up the driveway and the steering wheel/column had come unbolted from the under-dash mount. She was driving it by holding the wheel in her lap! (car had perhaps 250k miles on it?) That little engine ran great, but it tended to shake the rest of the car a lot. The engine was assured to outlast the car. Back then, most cars were not the best designed or built.
I ran 15w-40 Rotella because back then, I didn't know any better, and that's what the mechanic told me to use. And man, were filter changes a mess with that over/under filter block mount ...
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: The Critic
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
In what way do you believe Valvoline to be "inferior". (Not being an agitator; it's just that I'm unclear as to what point you were inferring. TBN?)
TBN is what I am curious about. From the Valvoline reports I have seen, it appears that their TBN retention is incredibly weak across their lines (Conventional, Maxlife and SynPower) compared to the other majors.
To bad you didn't have a Napa Store around always running great deals on their oil.
Well, sir, I'd be willing to assist. I would be curious to see how this played out as well. However, like I said, it's a ways off; I've got to burn through my stash of Peak I just loaded up with. And, I have other issues with many brands ...
A bit off topic ... prepare yourself mentally for the diatribe:
For me, even if the Valvoline did as well as QSGB for wear and TBN, I'd still have to see it be viable for at least 15k miles, because of the cost factor. I rarely (if ever) see Valvoline on sale in my area; it runs at least $13/gallon even with incentives and probably $17/gallon without incentives. I got the Peak for $8/gallon with rebate. Part of the issue for me personally is that I live out in the sticks, and I only get mail at a PO Box. Many of today's rebates exclude delivery to PO Boxes; that irritates the living poo out of me, as if I were some kind of second-class citizen. I have called and written Mobil, SUPUS, etc and typically get a "sorry, but that's our policy ..." response. For some reason, Peak is willing to assist me. These previous three OCIs of QSGB were purchased at Menards, and that rebate was in the form of a "merchandise credit check" rebate from Menards and not direct for QS. Therefore, Menards was willing to honor my PO Box; I shop there frequently so the "credit check" was of value to me. QS was not willing to deal with me directly. I have debated having the rebates sent to my work address, but I see two issues with that:
1) it is ethical?
2) would the personal mail get lost in the labyrinth of caos that is our internal mail service? (if the check goes AWOL, then I realize no "savings" ...)
It used to be that savings for lubes could be found at the counter upon checkout. BOGO's, mark-downs, etc, would make it worthwhile to stock up. Nowdays, about the only "sale" you find is with a rebate, and those are often laced with restrictions. This leads me to a rational conclusion that I'm seriously willing to try the Walmart branded SuperTech oils. They can be had for nearly the same costs as other brands I'd have to jump through hoops for, and all I have to do is walk in and pay a fair shelf price. Since I HIGHLY suspect ST lubes will perform very well for my "normal" OCIs, I am seriously considering some testing of them in my Fusion and my Duramax.
Hence - I simply don't buy Valvoline. It's not that I believe them to be a bad product; they simply are not willing to earn my business.
I'm ol' skool; I vote with my hands, feet and wallet.
Originally Posted By: The Critic
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
In what way do you believe Valvoline to be "inferior". (Not being an agitator; it's just that I'm unclear as to what point you were inferring. TBN?)
TBN is what I am curious about. From the Valvoline reports I have seen, it appears that their TBN retention is incredibly weak across their lines (Conventional, Maxlife and SynPower) compared to the other majors.
To bad you didn't have a Napa Store around always running great deals on their oil.
Well, sir, I'd be willing to assist. I would be curious to see how this played out as well. However, like I said, it's a ways off; I've got to burn through my stash of Peak I just loaded up with. And, I have other issues with many brands ...
A bit off topic ... prepare yourself mentally for the diatribe:
For me, even if the Valvoline did as well as QSGB for wear and TBN, I'd still have to see it be viable for at least 15k miles, because of the cost factor. I rarely (if ever) see Valvoline on sale in my area; it runs at least $13/gallon even with incentives and probably $17/gallon without incentives. I got the Peak for $8/gallon with rebate. Part of the issue for me personally is that I live out in the sticks, and I only get mail at a PO Box. Many of today's rebates exclude delivery to PO Boxes; that irritates the living poo out of me, as if I were some kind of second-class citizen. I have called and written Mobil, SUPUS, etc and typically get a "sorry, but that's our policy ..." response. For some reason, Peak is willing to assist me. These previous three OCIs of QSGB were purchased at Menards, and that rebate was in the form of a "merchandise credit check" rebate from Menards and not direct for QS. Therefore, Menards was willing to honor my PO Box; I shop there frequently so the "credit check" was of value to me. QS was not willing to deal with me directly. I have debated having the rebates sent to my work address, but I see two issues with that:
1) it is ethical?
2) would the personal mail get lost in the labyrinth of caos that is our internal mail service? (if the check goes AWOL, then I realize no "savings" ...)
It used to be that savings for lubes could be found at the counter upon checkout. BOGO's, mark-downs, etc, would make it worthwhile to stock up. Nowdays, about the only "sale" you find is with a rebate, and those are often laced with restrictions. This leads me to a rational conclusion that I'm seriously willing to try the Walmart branded SuperTech oils. They can be had for nearly the same costs as other brands I'd have to jump through hoops for, and all I have to do is walk in and pay a fair shelf price. Since I HIGHLY suspect ST lubes will perform very well for my "normal" OCIs, I am seriously considering some testing of them in my Fusion and my Duramax.
Hence - I simply don't buy Valvoline. It's not that I believe them to be a bad product; they simply are not willing to earn my business.
I'm ol' skool; I vote with my hands, feet and wallet.
Im sure using any sm rated oil would get same or close results
i dont see anything better in qs than any other oil
i dont see anything better in qs than any other oil
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: The Critic
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
In what way do you believe Valvoline to be "inferior". (Not being an agitator; it's just that I'm unclear as to what point you were inferring. TBN?)
TBN is what I am curious about. From the Valvoline reports I have seen, it appears that their TBN retention is incredibly weak across their lines (Conventional, Maxlife and SynPower) compared to the other majors.
Well, sir, I'd be willing to assist. I would be curious to see how this played out as well. However, like I said, it's a ways off; I've got to burn through my stash of Peak I just loaded up with. And, I have other issues with many brands ...
A bit off topic ... prepare yourself mentally for the diatribe:
For me, even if the Valvoline did as well as QSGB for wear and TBN, I'd still have to see it be viable for at least 15k miles, because of the cost factor. I rarely (if ever) see Valvoline on sale in my area; it runs at least $13/gallon even with incentives and probably $17/gallon without incentives. I got the Peak for $8/gallon with rebate.
This went up a dollar in the last week, but you can generally get Valvoline 5w-20 for ~$10/gallon any time you want. No shipping, no tax, no gas spent going to get it, no rebates.
http://www.amazon.com/Valvoline-vv142-Pr...7901&sr=8-5
Originally Posted By: The Critic
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
In what way do you believe Valvoline to be "inferior". (Not being an agitator; it's just that I'm unclear as to what point you were inferring. TBN?)
TBN is what I am curious about. From the Valvoline reports I have seen, it appears that their TBN retention is incredibly weak across their lines (Conventional, Maxlife and SynPower) compared to the other majors.
Well, sir, I'd be willing to assist. I would be curious to see how this played out as well. However, like I said, it's a ways off; I've got to burn through my stash of Peak I just loaded up with. And, I have other issues with many brands ...
A bit off topic ... prepare yourself mentally for the diatribe:
For me, even if the Valvoline did as well as QSGB for wear and TBN, I'd still have to see it be viable for at least 15k miles, because of the cost factor. I rarely (if ever) see Valvoline on sale in my area; it runs at least $13/gallon even with incentives and probably $17/gallon without incentives. I got the Peak for $8/gallon with rebate.
This went up a dollar in the last week, but you can generally get Valvoline 5w-20 for ~$10/gallon any time you want. No shipping, no tax, no gas spent going to get it, no rebates.
http://www.amazon.com/Valvoline-vv142-Pr...7901&sr=8-5
- Status
Similar threads
