Schaeffer Oil Seq. IIIG Results ALL the same? How?
- Thread starter CrawfishTails
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: salesrep
Your post does not answer the question with regards to your premise.
Actually it does. You're a sales rep for Schaeffer who doesn't use trinuclear (trimer) moly, so naturally you're going to say anything. Why not ask your company why it falsely applies STC guidelines reporting the same wear/visc results on the IIIG when the rules only allow reporting a test pass? False advertising any way a sales rep can spin it.
As for trimer moly, just do your own research and googling. Read Infineums graphs at least.
Your post does not answer the question with regards to your premise.
Actually it does. You're a sales rep for Schaeffer who doesn't use trinuclear (trimer) moly, so naturally you're going to say anything. Why not ask your company why it falsely applies STC guidelines reporting the same wear/visc results on the IIIG when the rules only allow reporting a test pass? False advertising any way a sales rep can spin it.
As for trimer moly, just do your own research and googling. Read Infineums graphs at least.
Last edited:
MolaKule
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: CrawfishTails
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: CrawfishTails
You noticed that as well.
Originally Posted By: CrawfishTails
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: CrawfishTails
MolaKule said:
You noticed that as well.
Mola, you came around eventually, don't be so hard on yourself. Just concentrate on sticking with the thread topics instead of being odd.
Crawfish,
You make the statement that Schaeffers is using old school moly and that it is 2 to three times worse that the other. I contend that Schaeffers moly is NOT old school and is NOT a lesser additive technology than the others.
...as for the tests you refer. I do not have that answer, nor am I willing to research it. Could be copy and paste mistake or duplication by a lazy intern, perhaps the tech dept., whose brain is much better served formulating, developing and researching versus editing, didn't edit very good. Maybe the bylines state in a variety of ways that these tests can be published or perhaps by the base sock or additive companies results or maybe Schaeffers just made a mistake ...I dunno.
What I do know is that Schaeffer's Specialized Lubricants blends great products and is ahead of the curve with additive technology and whose integrity in the marketplace is second to none!
You make the statement that Schaeffers is using old school moly and that it is 2 to three times worse that the other. I contend that Schaeffers moly is NOT old school and is NOT a lesser additive technology than the others.
...as for the tests you refer. I do not have that answer, nor am I willing to research it. Could be copy and paste mistake or duplication by a lazy intern, perhaps the tech dept., whose brain is much better served formulating, developing and researching versus editing, didn't edit very good. Maybe the bylines state in a variety of ways that these tests can be published or perhaps by the base sock or additive companies results or maybe Schaeffers just made a mistake ...I dunno.
What I do know is that Schaeffer's Specialized Lubricants blends great products and is ahead of the curve with additive technology and whose integrity in the marketplace is second to none!
Originally Posted By: salesrep
You make the statement that Schaeffers is using old school moly and that it is 2 to three times worse that the other. I contend that Schaeffers moly is NOT old school and is NOT a lesser additive technology than the others.
Thanks for the discussion anyway....I've always thought Schaeffers might be a good product. However, from what I've read from an engineering perspective, it does appear the newer trimer moly technology is much better. Sorry thats not what you want to hear. With patents and agreements, its hard for everybody to get their hands on it, including Schaeffers. I will say that using the older dimer moly is still fine as long as more is used, so really not that big an issue.
Originally Posted By: salesrep
...as for the tests you refer. I do not have that answer, nor am I willing to research it.
Thank you for your honesty. I didn't expect a salesman for Schaeffers to want the truth. Seriously, its human nature. We've all had trouble with salesman over many years.
Originally Posted By: salesrep
Could be copy and paste mistake or duplication by a lazy intern, perhaps the tech dept., ....I dunno. ............
You didn't read my post above about my call to Schaeffer oil tech line. I'm convinced its false advertising from a misapplication of STC rules. Almost fooled me until I actually checked several tech data sheets for different oils. Schaeffer oil tech line said they used base oil interchange rules etc. to use an engine test on one oil to 4 other oils of different weights and base stock oil composition. Yeah, right, that works out to an exact 9.8/130 result for all 5 oils. Suuuurrrre it does.... Good salesman material, try not to laugh when you repeat that lie.
Originally Posted By: salesrep
What I do know is that Schaeffer's Specialized Lubricants blends great products and is ahead of the curve with additive technology and whose integrity in the marketplace is second to none!
I'm not convinced, based on false advertising Schaeffers was caught in. Integrity means something.
You make the statement that Schaeffers is using old school moly and that it is 2 to three times worse that the other. I contend that Schaeffers moly is NOT old school and is NOT a lesser additive technology than the others.
Thanks for the discussion anyway....I've always thought Schaeffers might be a good product. However, from what I've read from an engineering perspective, it does appear the newer trimer moly technology is much better. Sorry thats not what you want to hear. With patents and agreements, its hard for everybody to get their hands on it, including Schaeffers. I will say that using the older dimer moly is still fine as long as more is used, so really not that big an issue.
Originally Posted By: salesrep
...as for the tests you refer. I do not have that answer, nor am I willing to research it.
Thank you for your honesty. I didn't expect a salesman for Schaeffers to want the truth. Seriously, its human nature. We've all had trouble with salesman over many years.
Originally Posted By: salesrep
Could be copy and paste mistake or duplication by a lazy intern, perhaps the tech dept., ....I dunno. ............
You didn't read my post above about my call to Schaeffer oil tech line. I'm convinced its false advertising from a misapplication of STC rules. Almost fooled me until I actually checked several tech data sheets for different oils. Schaeffer oil tech line said they used base oil interchange rules etc. to use an engine test on one oil to 4 other oils of different weights and base stock oil composition. Yeah, right, that works out to an exact 9.8/130 result for all 5 oils. Suuuurrrre it does.... Good salesman material, try not to laugh when you repeat that lie.
Originally Posted By: salesrep
What I do know is that Schaeffer's Specialized Lubricants blends great products and is ahead of the curve with additive technology and whose integrity in the marketplace is second to none!
I'm not convinced, based on false advertising Schaeffers was caught in. Integrity means something.
Originally Posted By: CrawfishTails
(Posting this over in the discussion of Base Oil Interchange rules and STM Single Tech Matrix guidelines too.) Its applicable to what I was trying to figure out was going on at Schaeffer Oil's tech data sheets here claiming exact 9.8 & 130% scores identically for all their motor oils. Still think this is fishy practice. Below, I think there is a valid reason for an oil company to only be able to say "PASS" if using STM with no actual engine tests, not exact figures! ---->
From http://papers.sae.org/2002-01-2676/ :
"Once a guideline is approved, a supplier can interchange or read an engine test pass for a particular additive package in a particular base oil and/or viscosity grade to a base oil and/or viscosity grade of equal or better performance without running an engine test."
OK, so it sounds like a company can only claim an oil they didn't actually run through a Sequence IIIG for example "passed", not the "all its oils magically" have the same micron wear rating and viscosity increases.
I'm a little late to the party but here is my two cents:
Any blender purchasing a "pre-approved" DI pack relies on BOI and STM guidelines. How it typically works is the Additive supplier does serious amounts of testing and certifications with readily available base oils that their customers are using. The additive supplier also can provide sample formulas which all perform basically the same on certain tests to meet the various required viscosity grades.
When registering for certification, the additive supplier provides the blender with average results for the DI pack, and these can then be used to certify multiple grades. As long as these sample formulas (sometimes called oil studies) are followed, the oils can be registered with the API and do not require additional testing.
The fact that Schaeffer Oil have decided to publish their information (which is not typical) IMO is applaudable, but is likely based off of the results they received from their Additive supplier. Cam Lobe wear is primarily a function of the additives not so much the viscosity.
(Posting this over in the discussion of Base Oil Interchange rules and STM Single Tech Matrix guidelines too.) Its applicable to what I was trying to figure out was going on at Schaeffer Oil's tech data sheets here claiming exact 9.8 & 130% scores identically for all their motor oils. Still think this is fishy practice. Below, I think there is a valid reason for an oil company to only be able to say "PASS" if using STM with no actual engine tests, not exact figures! ---->
From http://papers.sae.org/2002-01-2676/ :
"Once a guideline is approved, a supplier can interchange or read an engine test pass for a particular additive package in a particular base oil and/or viscosity grade to a base oil and/or viscosity grade of equal or better performance without running an engine test."
OK, so it sounds like a company can only claim an oil they didn't actually run through a Sequence IIIG for example "passed", not the "all its oils magically" have the same micron wear rating and viscosity increases.
I'm a little late to the party but here is my two cents:
Any blender purchasing a "pre-approved" DI pack relies on BOI and STM guidelines. How it typically works is the Additive supplier does serious amounts of testing and certifications with readily available base oils that their customers are using. The additive supplier also can provide sample formulas which all perform basically the same on certain tests to meet the various required viscosity grades.
When registering for certification, the additive supplier provides the blender with average results for the DI pack, and these can then be used to certify multiple grades. As long as these sample formulas (sometimes called oil studies) are followed, the oils can be registered with the API and do not require additional testing.
The fact that Schaeffer Oil have decided to publish their information (which is not typical) IMO is applaudable, but is likely based off of the results they received from their Additive supplier. Cam Lobe wear is primarily a function of the additives not so much the viscosity.
Originally Posted By: Solarent
Originally Posted By: CrawfishTails
(Posting this over in the discussion of Base Oil Interchange rules and STM Single Tech Matrix guidelines too.) Its applicable to what I was trying to figure out was going on at Schaeffer Oil's tech data sheets here claiming exact 9.8 & 130% scores identically for all their motor oils. Still think this is fishy practice. Below, I think there is a valid reason for an oil company to only be able to say "PASS" if using STM with no actual engine tests, not exact figures! ---->
From http://papers.sae.org/2002-01-2676/ :
"Once a guideline is approved, a supplier can interchange or read an engine test pass for a particular additive package in a particular base oil and/or viscosity grade to a base oil and/or viscosity grade of equal or better performance without running an engine test."
OK, so it sounds like a company can only claim an oil they didn't actually run through a Sequence IIIG for example "passed", not the "all its oils magically" have the same micron wear rating and viscosity increases.
I'm a little late to the party but here is my two cents:
Any blender purchasing a "pre-approved" DI pack relies on BOI and STM guidelines. How it typically works is the Additive supplier does serious amounts of testing and certifications with readily available base oils that their customers are using. The additive supplier also can provide sample formulas which all perform basically the same on certain tests to meet the various required viscosity grades.
When registering for certification, the additive supplier provides the blender with average results for the DI pack, and these can then be used to certify multiple grades. As long as these sample formulas (sometimes called oil studies) are followed, the oils can be registered with the API and do not require additional testing.
The fact that Schaeffer Oil have decided to publish their information (which is not typical) IMO is applaudable, but is likely based off of the results they received from their Additive supplier. Cam Lobe wear is primarily a function of the additives not so much the viscosity.
Great insight. Thanks! Agreed with almost all you say. However, I think you're missing the point, that exact Sequence IIIG results can't cover 5 oils, only "test pass" will do. The STM rules were meant to show that a DI package can vary a little in performance in vastly diff base oils, syn to semi-syn, -20 to -30 weights, but not enough to cause a test fail. Just pass/fail is all they are allowed to assume.
I do disagree a little that cam lobe wear is "mostly" additives. Tech papers I've read over the years show that heavier oils stay out of Boundary Lubrication (BL) more on cams. Lighter oils need additives to a greater extent, since more BL occurs, think Stribeck curves. Half additives, half viscosity from what I've seen, approximately, not purely one or the other. (Corroborated with a statement by a Castrol person on bitog too that RNT tests are hard to pass with light 0w-20 oils.)
I admit I merely form my opinion from tech papers over many years of engineering studies and statements from experts with direct lab experience in esoteric areas.
Originally Posted By: CrawfishTails
(Posting this over in the discussion of Base Oil Interchange rules and STM Single Tech Matrix guidelines too.) Its applicable to what I was trying to figure out was going on at Schaeffer Oil's tech data sheets here claiming exact 9.8 & 130% scores identically for all their motor oils. Still think this is fishy practice. Below, I think there is a valid reason for an oil company to only be able to say "PASS" if using STM with no actual engine tests, not exact figures! ---->
From http://papers.sae.org/2002-01-2676/ :
"Once a guideline is approved, a supplier can interchange or read an engine test pass for a particular additive package in a particular base oil and/or viscosity grade to a base oil and/or viscosity grade of equal or better performance without running an engine test."
OK, so it sounds like a company can only claim an oil they didn't actually run through a Sequence IIIG for example "passed", not the "all its oils magically" have the same micron wear rating and viscosity increases.
I'm a little late to the party but here is my two cents:
Any blender purchasing a "pre-approved" DI pack relies on BOI and STM guidelines. How it typically works is the Additive supplier does serious amounts of testing and certifications with readily available base oils that their customers are using. The additive supplier also can provide sample formulas which all perform basically the same on certain tests to meet the various required viscosity grades.
When registering for certification, the additive supplier provides the blender with average results for the DI pack, and these can then be used to certify multiple grades. As long as these sample formulas (sometimes called oil studies) are followed, the oils can be registered with the API and do not require additional testing.
The fact that Schaeffer Oil have decided to publish their information (which is not typical) IMO is applaudable, but is likely based off of the results they received from their Additive supplier. Cam Lobe wear is primarily a function of the additives not so much the viscosity.
Great insight. Thanks! Agreed with almost all you say. However, I think you're missing the point, that exact Sequence IIIG results can't cover 5 oils, only "test pass" will do. The STM rules were meant to show that a DI package can vary a little in performance in vastly diff base oils, syn to semi-syn, -20 to -30 weights, but not enough to cause a test fail. Just pass/fail is all they are allowed to assume.
I do disagree a little that cam lobe wear is "mostly" additives. Tech papers I've read over the years show that heavier oils stay out of Boundary Lubrication (BL) more on cams. Lighter oils need additives to a greater extent, since more BL occurs, think Stribeck curves. Half additives, half viscosity from what I've seen, approximately, not purely one or the other. (Corroborated with a statement by a Castrol person on bitog too that RNT tests are hard to pass with light 0w-20 oils.)
I admit I merely form my opinion from tech papers over many years of engineering studies and statements from experts with direct lab experience in esoteric areas.
Originally Posted By: Solarent
The fact that Schaeffer Oil have decided to publish their information (which is not typical) IMO is applaudable, .....
Sure its applaudable, if its right. STM rules are only built to see that the probable spread still keeps all the grades under the pass/fail limits.
Granted, we like to see IIIG or IVA test results, and since exact results have been used by Kendall GT-1, Mobil1, and Castrol Synblend in the past to sell more oil, it becomes a truth-in-advertising issue.
The fact that Schaeffer Oil have decided to publish their information (which is not typical) IMO is applaudable, .....
Sure its applaudable, if its right. STM rules are only built to see that the probable spread still keeps all the grades under the pass/fail limits.
Granted, we like to see IIIG or IVA test results, and since exact results have been used by Kendall GT-1, Mobil1, and Castrol Synblend in the past to sell more oil, it becomes a truth-in-advertising issue.
I agree with Crawfish in that the tri-nuclear moly > the moly being used in Schaeffers. Less is required.
I like how Schaeffer's publishes a lot of data for their PDS's. Definitely a great blender. Is it worth it compared to the majors like Pennzoil/Mobil 1? I don't think so.
I like how Schaeffer's publishes a lot of data for their PDS's. Definitely a great blender. Is it worth it compared to the majors like Pennzoil/Mobil 1? I don't think so.
Originally Posted By: buster
I agree with Crawfish in that the tri-nuclear moly > the moly being used in Schaeffers. Less is required.
I like how Schaeffer's publishes a lot of data for their PDS's. Definitely a great blender. Is it worth it compared to the majors like Pennzoil/Mobil 1? I don't think so.
how do you define "worth it?" it is cheaper than both of those.
I agree with Crawfish in that the tri-nuclear moly > the moly being used in Schaeffers. Less is required.
I like how Schaeffer's publishes a lot of data for their PDS's. Definitely a great blender. Is it worth it compared to the majors like Pennzoil/Mobil 1? I don't think so.
how do you define "worth it?" it is cheaper than both of those.
Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: buster
I agree with Crawfish in that the tri-nuclear moly > the moly being used in Schaeffers. Less is required.
I like how Schaeffer's publishes a lot of data for their PDS's. Definitely a great blender. Is it worth it compared to the majors like Pennzoil/Mobil 1? I don't think so.
how do you define "worth it?" it is cheaper than both of those.
Schaeffers isn't cheaper than Pennz/Mobil synthetics. No way. About $5.50 per quart in the 5-quart jugs for Pennz/Mobil/Castrol synthetics that get the job done nicely. Schaeffer 9000 5w-30 is about $8 per quart if you buy 12 quarts on Amazon. I'd almost buy Schaeffers, yet the false advertising, violations of STM rules bugs me too much.
Originally Posted By: buster
I agree with Crawfish in that the tri-nuclear moly > the moly being used in Schaeffers. Less is required.
I like how Schaeffer's publishes a lot of data for their PDS's. Definitely a great blender. Is it worth it compared to the majors like Pennzoil/Mobil 1? I don't think so.
how do you define "worth it?" it is cheaper than both of those.
Schaeffers isn't cheaper than Pennz/Mobil synthetics. No way. About $5.50 per quart in the 5-quart jugs for Pennz/Mobil/Castrol synthetics that get the job done nicely. Schaeffer 9000 5w-30 is about $8 per quart if you buy 12 quarts on Amazon. I'd almost buy Schaeffers, yet the false advertising, violations of STM rules bugs me too much.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: buster
I agree with Crawfish in that the tri-nuclear moly > the moly being used in Schaeffers. Less is required.
I like how Schaeffer's publishes a lot of data for their PDS's. Definitely a great blender. Is it worth it compared to the majors like Pennzoil/Mobil 1? I don't think so.
Schaeffers has used an advanced package to solely a Moly Trimer system as part of their add pack for quite some time.
I agree with Crawfish in that the tri-nuclear moly > the moly being used in Schaeffers. Less is required.
I like how Schaeffer's publishes a lot of data for their PDS's. Definitely a great blender. Is it worth it compared to the majors like Pennzoil/Mobil 1? I don't think so.
Schaeffers has used an advanced package to solely a Moly Trimer system as part of their add pack for quite some time.
Originally Posted By: salesrep
Originally Posted By: buster
I agree with Crawfish in that the tri-nuclear moly > the moly being used in Schaeffers. Less is required.
I like how Schaeffer's publishes a lot of data for their PDS's. Definitely a great blender. Is it worth it compared to the majors like Pennzoil/Mobil 1? I don't think so.
Schaeffers has used an advanced package to solely a Moly Trimer system as part of their add pack for quite some time.
Of course there are other things besides moly in any motor oil. Kendall uses boron, moly, and titanium anti-wear/friction additives on top of the old ZDDP stuff. Castrol a similar approach. Mobil and Pennz synthetics use boron, moly, ZDDP. Schaeffers uses small boron, old moly tech, and heavy sodium in some form for their add pack.
I just don't think you can make the case that tiny Schaeffers is higher tech than the big companies. No evidence of that. If there is, show it. Sorry I'm so logical.
Originally Posted By: buster
I agree with Crawfish in that the tri-nuclear moly > the moly being used in Schaeffers. Less is required.
I like how Schaeffer's publishes a lot of data for their PDS's. Definitely a great blender. Is it worth it compared to the majors like Pennzoil/Mobil 1? I don't think so.
Schaeffers has used an advanced package to solely a Moly Trimer system as part of their add pack for quite some time.
Of course there are other things besides moly in any motor oil. Kendall uses boron, moly, and titanium anti-wear/friction additives on top of the old ZDDP stuff. Castrol a similar approach. Mobil and Pennz synthetics use boron, moly, ZDDP. Schaeffers uses small boron, old moly tech, and heavy sodium in some form for their add pack.
I just don't think you can make the case that tiny Schaeffers is higher tech than the big companies. No evidence of that. If there is, show it. Sorry I'm so logical.
Originally Posted By: salesrep
Schaeffers has used an advanced package to solely a Moly Trimer system as part of their add pack for quite some time.
Thanks, but I can't parse this sentence. What does it mean "to solely"?
Schaeffers has used an advanced package to solely a Moly Trimer system as part of their add pack for quite some time.
Thanks, but I can't parse this sentence. What does it mean "to solely"?
There are many ways to formulate a good oil. My personal opinion is that what goes into an oil like M1 is generally going to be the latest top notch quality in terms of base oils and additives.
Mobil was using Na/Ti in their lesser quality oils for a few years.
PZ/Castrol/Mobil all seem to be using the tri nuclear moly. TGMO as well.
It's really the end product that matters, not how you get there.
You can't beat M1 at Walmart.
Mobil was using Na/Ti in their lesser quality oils for a few years.
PZ/Castrol/Mobil all seem to be using the tri nuclear moly. TGMO as well.
It's really the end product that matters, not how you get there.
You can't beat M1 at Walmart.
Originally Posted By: CrawfishTails
Schaeffers isn't cheaper than Pennz/Mobil synthetics. No way. About $5.50 per quart in the 5-quart jugs for Pennz/Mobil/Castrol synthetics that get the job done nicely. Schaeffer 9000 5w-30 is about $8 per quart if you buy 12 quarts on Amazon. I'd almost buy Schaeffers, yet the false advertising, violations of STM rules bugs me too much.
I'm not sure about Amazon but I know people around here who are members or whatever and buy it from schaeffers for less than $5.50/qt. i wasn't even aware you could buy it online.
Schaeffers isn't cheaper than Pennz/Mobil synthetics. No way. About $5.50 per quart in the 5-quart jugs for Pennz/Mobil/Castrol synthetics that get the job done nicely. Schaeffer 9000 5w-30 is about $8 per quart if you buy 12 quarts on Amazon. I'd almost buy Schaeffers, yet the false advertising, violations of STM rules bugs me too much.
I'm not sure about Amazon but I know people around here who are members or whatever and buy it from schaeffers for less than $5.50/qt. i wasn't even aware you could buy it online.
Crawfish, you keep bringing up old school moly used by Schaeffers and this simply is not the case. Schaeffers has conducted many many many studies in the lab, on dynos, and head to head comparisons against most all the players (though mostly with HDEO's). Most frequently Schaeffers comes out ahead.
Your axe to grind is quite apparent and with that, I bid adieu.
Your axe to grind is quite apparent and with that, I bid adieu.
Originally Posted By: salesrep
Crawfish, you keep bringing up old school moly used by Schaeffers and this simply is not the case. Schaeffers has conducted many many many studies in the lab, on dynos, and head to head comparisons against most all the players (though mostly with HDEO's). Most frequently Schaeffers comes out ahead.
Your axe to grind is quite apparent and with that, I bid adieu.
No axe to grind here. I don't care about brands. You sell Schaeffers, so who is biased here?
Any evidence of all these good things you talk about? If thats true, where is the evidence on their website? Not there. hmmmm, well, OK, I guess we'll just take the word of a salesman then.
Crawfish, you keep bringing up old school moly used by Schaeffers and this simply is not the case. Schaeffers has conducted many many many studies in the lab, on dynos, and head to head comparisons against most all the players (though mostly with HDEO's). Most frequently Schaeffers comes out ahead.
Your axe to grind is quite apparent and with that, I bid adieu.
No axe to grind here. I don't care about brands. You sell Schaeffers, so who is biased here?
Any evidence of all these good things you talk about? If thats true, where is the evidence on their website? Not there. hmmmm, well, OK, I guess we'll just take the word of a salesman then.
Originally Posted By: badtlc
I'm not sure about Amazon but I know people around here who are members or whatever and buy it from schaeffers for less than $5.50/qt. i wasn't even aware you could buy it online.
Its 2015 and you can buy almost anything online.
I'd like to know how to get 12 quarts of Supreme 9000 5w-30 for less than $5.50/qt like you say. Any way you know? Schaefferoil.com webstore direct has the same price as Amazon.com which about $8/quart if you buy 12 quarts at a time.
I'm not sure about Amazon but I know people around here who are members or whatever and buy it from schaeffers for less than $5.50/qt. i wasn't even aware you could buy it online.
Its 2015 and you can buy almost anything online.
I'd like to know how to get 12 quarts of Supreme 9000 5w-30 for less than $5.50/qt like you say. Any way you know? Schaefferoil.com webstore direct has the same price as Amazon.com which about $8/quart if you buy 12 quarts at a time.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
