Yeah I remember. There was a lot of back and forth on that with one older formulator really taking issue with the Lubrizol study. I'm not going to rehash it. As far as Noack, most top tier synthetics are now all under 10%. The EP lines are also fortified with more AO for longer drains.
Restore & Protect - GDI Intake Valve Deposits
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
Yeah I remember. There was a lot of back and forth on that with one older formulator really taking issue with the Lubrizol study. I'm not going to rehash it. As far as Noack, most top tier synthetics are now all under 10%. The EP lines are also fortified with more AO for longer drains.
edyvw
$50 site donor 2025
Who did this study? According to this study Valvoline Advance is better than numerous oils that contain far better base stocks, including XLIII which has Noack at 10%. Call me skeptical.
edyvw
$50 site donor 2025
IVD primarily comes from crappy PCV! BMW N54 and N55 are perfect examples. Both are DI. N54 has big issues with IVD, N55 doesn’t.
Hmmmm……..
I would like Costco to ‘splain to us how their newly reformulated gasoline “helps remove existing IVD.”
Especially in DI engines.
If I understand the issue correctly, that’s the problem: the fuel is directly injected and doesn’t get anywhere near the intake valves. Otherwise, a bottle of Gumout Regane All-in-One or Techron in a tank of gas at refueling time would also suffice in preventing or removing IVD.
I like Costco gasoline but to say it now helps with IVD in DI engines is a stretch.
And as an aside, I doubt few drivers filling up at Costco even know what intake valve deposits are or what direct injection means in an internal combustion engine.
edyvw
$50 site donor 2025
Absolutely. Oil can help, a bit. The key is PCV design. That is why some engines do well with full SAPS, some don't. Lexus IS250 and GS300 2006-2010 are probably the worst offenders.
There was an article in their magazine a while back describing their re-formulation to be better for DI engines. I had not heard about removing existing deposits until I read it on their pumps yesterday.
I remember reading that low SA or low-SAPS oil or ACEA C3 (mid-SAPS) are better if concerned with IVD.
Not sure if this was an undisputed fact or not since there are so many variables when it comes to IVD. I finally kind of gave up on it.
For example PP Euro L 5W-30 is MB 229.51 & C3
I think 229.51 is mid-saps & HTHS >= 3.5 and Noack <= 10%. No?
What are the major differences between 229.52 and 51?
There are none, except if you consider a theoretical mpg gain from reduced thickening by oxidization a "difference"
So MB 229.51 is more stout than 229.52, otherwise they are both mid SAPS?
HT/HS wise, like MB229.5 vs. the energy-conserving MB229.6
Is there a common pattern with the MB that the higher .x number is thinner or less stout?
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/t...-matter-for-intake-valve-deposits-ivd.326281/
It's questionable at best.
I personally think 1-4 listed is more ideal.
"The blanket statement that high SAPS engine oils result in worse Inlet Valve Deposits on GDI engines is total and utter bollocks!!!! It may have been 11 years ago but even so, Mike McMabe should hang his head in shame for peddling such misleading and self-serving propaganda.
Okay, let's go back to 2006 when this presentation was issued. If you look at the maximum permitted Sulphated Ash levels for 'normal' ACEA oils, they appear very high ranging from 1.3% (for A1/B1) to 1.6% (for A3/B4). But these are MAXIMUM levels. There were no minimum ash levels and at the time nor were there any minimum TBN limits. The reality was that in 2006, the ash levels of these oils was no where near the maximum limits. At a rough guess, a typical European SL/CF/A3/B4/MB229.1/VW505 oil (that was sort of the typical market spec level) would have a TBN of 8-ish and an ash of 0.8-ish. In other words, ash-wise, these oils weren't a million miles from the ash specs of ACEA C2 & C3 low SAPS oils. Also, while Phosphorus wasn't explicitly limited for ACEA oils, most commercial oils had P levels of under 1000 ppm; so again, not a million miles from the 900 ppm max of most of the low SAPs grades.
Now let's look at A1/B1. A1/B1 was always something of a grudging nod by ACEA to what was happening in the US on fuel economy oils. Most of the big European OEMs didn't want it as they were still very much wedded to their 3.5 min HTHS limit, but people like Ford could see a place for 2.9 min HTHS oils in Europe. A1/B1 was US-like in other ways. It allowed oils with upto 15% Noack (vs 13% max for all other oils) so importantly it could be made from Group I/II oils. Secondly, unlike other ACEA oils, A1/B1 did not have to stay-in-grade on the KO30 shear test, meaning that it could use US-like high SSI VIIs. Thirdly, and critically, A1/B1 oils were allowed an easy ride on the Peugeot TU5 test.
There's one other relevant piece of the jigsaw to share. Whilst A1/B1 oils are notionally dual-use oils (ie for both gasoline & Diesel engines), the OEMs that plugged them did NOT recommend them for Diesel.
So now we get to this field trial that so convincingly 'demonstrated' that a Euro 3, OEM recommended, high SAPs oil gave far worse IVDs on a GDI engine than a Euro 4 low SAPs oil.
Now the presentation gives no details on what oils were compared but one might imagine a scenario where an AddCo, keen to capitalise on a new market opportunity, compares a high SAPs oil with a low SAPs oil. Obviously they want the trial to give the 'right' result that suits their commercial purposes. So what do they do? Might they compare an mineral-based, 5W30, nominally (but not really) high SAPs, A1/B1 oil (with its attendant high Noack) to a full synthetic (possibly PAO) low SAPs oil (with presumably a very low Noack). Given the mechanism by which valve deposits are formed, which do you think will demonstrate the better performance??? Well of course the low SAPs oil will so QED, high SAPs oil is bad m'kay?
Finally let's consider what Direct Gasoline Injection might have been used for this field trial. As I recall, there weren't that many around back then but one was about to be launched; the infamous Audi 2.0L TFSI engine. Yep. That one. The one that ate oil like it was going out of style. The one that suffered from obscene amounts of inlet valve deposits. The one that was subject to a class action lawsuit suit in the US. Do we still think it's right to blame high SAPs oil for causing IVD problems or might it possibly be that the engine itself was a dog??
Some folks really do need to stop treating every single thing they read on the internet as Gospel and mindlessly parroting messages that are simply not true."
HPL has fleets running full SAPs oils in GDI engines with no issues.
Last edited:
In your opinion, if you had a severe case of varnish under the valve cover, would Valvoline R&P or (HPL EC30 for 5k miles) be more effective at removing the varnish?
Having no experience with HPL products myself, but from my short time on this forum, I think it's clear the EC would work faster because I believe it's meant to.
The Valvoline R&P takes 4-8 regular interval oil changes. That's a lot of driving. Im honestly considering using the EC myself, and not because the VRP doesn't work, I believe it does, which is why I've been using it. I'm just not a patient guy. And since I'm not testing it for anyone, I'm not trying to eliminate variables, I just want results. The only reason I haven't pulled the trigger on it was because I was going to wait until oil consumption in my vehicle was reduced by enough that an expensive oil like HPL could be used without having to top off
I've only put a put 3k miles of VRP through my current car. It's not the most expensive but it's not the cheapest. It's readily available at AutoZone, so I like that. Does it work? Too soon to tell. I believe it will, but either it does or it doesn't. Either way I'm doing whatever I can to aid the efficiency and speed of this decarbonization effect.
Patman
Staff member
Where are you getting this information that it takes up to 8 intervals? I haven’t seen that posted anywhere. Valvoline claims up to 4 intervals. (Although they still haven’t officially said how long each of those intervals should be, they just say to follow your car manufacturer’s recommendations.
I don't know which would be more effective. Two products formulated very differently.
Right it just depends on the buildup.
This was cleaned well in just 4k miles. I think if you're driving a lot and getting the oil hot the better it will clean. Vs just going to the store up the street for a minute.
Since both products clean slowly, it might be advisable to use both: 3.5 quarts Valvoline R&P + 1 quart HPL EC30 as a permanent solution with 5,000 mile oil changes.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
HPL EC is designed to be slow, the concern (as noted by Dave) is when you jump in with the oil, like I did, and several others, where you then get considerable material liberated in a very short period of time.
I don't know, saw someone else say it. I double checked, the bottle, promotional material and their website, it just says "after 4 or more".