I checked it with wallet
Shell RGT question
- Thread starter wbwanzer
- Start date
- Status
1-3% fuel saving based on oil selection (based on wide swings in viscosity to get that) are tiny compared to the 10-15% variability being reported. This is due to driving, environmental and fuel variabilities impacting the mileage much More than an oil can, additionally it's a new vehicle that is still breaking in which is another variable.
Changing from one ILSAC "fuel or resource conserving grade" to another is not goi g to result in measurable real world results if all factors could be held constant. That would mean having the same exact fuel, the same exact trip with the same amount of stops, idle time and acceleration and cruising speeds for the exact same durations. Also the temperature, humidity and wind would need to be exactly the same.
That the science. You can not blame aa 10-15% difference on a 1-3% variable.
Changing from one ILSAC "fuel or resource conserving grade" to another is not goi g to result in measurable real world results if all factors could be held constant. That would mean having the same exact fuel, the same exact trip with the same amount of stops, idle time and acceleration and cruising speeds for the exact same durations. Also the temperature, humidity and wind would need to be exactly the same.
That the science. You can not blame aa 10-15% difference on a 1-3% variable.
And one of the specific instances being discussed here was only a brand change.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted by tiger862
https://www.government-fleet.com/146789/mythbusters-fleet-edition
Here is almost a 2% loss going from conventional oil to synthetic oil same grade. If you go to reviews on Valvoline people claimed 4 mpg increase. Not everything can be explained and why I said to run this one out to OCI then go to a different oil to see if a change. If your fuel mileage comes back then stick with an oil that works.
That's hardly a lab test like what the oil companies run but even then, less than 2% whilst you were claiming 33%. Citing reviews from other folks are no different than the claims you yourself are making here. You guys simply lack the equipment and controls necessary to properly measure what you claim to be obtaining. When OEM's are chasing fractions going after 0w-16, 0w-12 and 0w-8, do you not think if it was as simple to gain 20-30% in economy by just switching to Valvoline that whatever compound was used to deliver that gain would be mandated as part of an approval like Dexos?
https://www.government-fleet.com/146789/mythbusters-fleet-edition
Here is almost a 2% loss going from conventional oil to synthetic oil same grade. If you go to reviews on Valvoline people claimed 4 mpg increase. Not everything can be explained and why I said to run this one out to OCI then go to a different oil to see if a change. If your fuel mileage comes back then stick with an oil that works.
That's hardly a lab test like what the oil companies run but even then, less than 2% whilst you were claiming 33%. Citing reviews from other folks are no different than the claims you yourself are making here. You guys simply lack the equipment and controls necessary to properly measure what you claim to be obtaining. When OEM's are chasing fractions going after 0w-16, 0w-12 and 0w-8, do you not think if it was as simple to gain 20-30% in economy by just switching to Valvoline that whatever compound was used to deliver that gain would be mandated as part of an approval like Dexos?
There is real world and there is lab world. I believe in real world and use lab world as a reference. No 2 vehicles are the same. All I know is some get 17 average and I get 20.5 average. Since I quit logging and going with OLM as mine seems to be within 1 mpg either way I just check it every so often. I have gotten as high as 28 hwy with blend before and after suspected oil and never lower than 17 both hand calculated and dash. Real world shows oil made a difference (9k miles of data). I don't know how I got brunt of comments about this dead issue as I just said run this OcI out and try another oil to see if improves. If it improves then stay with what works. Seems like some people get bent out of shape if they can't make the point of I know everything and no one else does. In order to stop the bashing I had to say maybe you are correct. I since have proved to out how bent out of shape people get over someone posting oil and fuel mileage can go hand in hand.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted by tiger862
There is real world and there is lab world.
No, there is amateur data collected under insufficiently controlled conditions that causes one to draw spurious conclusions and then there is actual testing on dynometers under controlled conditions where every variable is accounted for where the ACTUAL impact of the specific product can be measured.
Originally Posted by tiger862
I believe in real world and use lab world as a reference.
What you appear to believe in is that the results of uncontrolled testing, as noted above, are more valid than those derived through strict scientific rigour which is entirely at odds with "reality" or the "real world". I've had guys tell me they've shot coyotes at 500 yards. Then you take them out to the range and they ask how far away that target is and you tell them 200 yards and they get REAL QUIET. Numbers can be pretty magic when you aren't actually in a position to properly measure them.
Originally Posted by tiger862
No 2 vehicles are the same.
No, but when an oil company runs a FLEET of vehicles under controlled conditions to SPECIFICALLY measure the impact of different formulations; ones PURPOSE BLENDED for the goal of improving fuel economy and their results list a range of 0.2-2%, how plausible do you think that makes a 33% improvement?
Originally Posted by tiger862
All I know is some get 17 average and I get 20.5 average. Since I quit logging and going with OLM as mine seems to be within 1 mpg either way I just check it every so often. I have gotten as high as 28 hwy with blend before and after suspected oil and never lower than 17 both hand calculated and dash. Real world shows oil made a difference (9k miles of data).
I'm not really sure what you are saying here, but again, given that you do not have strictly controlled conditions, don't have control over the quality or blend of fuel, don't have control over barometric pressure, temperature....etc chalking up a gain orders of magnitude beyond what's been proven in controlled testing should have you considering the idea that perhaps it is something else.
Originally Posted by tiger862
I don't know how I got brunt of comments about this dead issue as I just said run this OcI out and try another oil to see if improves. If it improves then stay with what works. Seems like some people get bent out of shape if they can't make the point of I know everything and no one else does. In order to stop the bashing I had to say maybe you are correct. I since have proved to out how bent out of shape people get over someone posting oil and fuel mileage can go hand in hand.
Because oil WILL NOT provide an improvement of fuel economy measurable by Average Joe. We are talking fractions of a MPG here. A 2% improvement on a vehicle that averages 24MPG is less than 0.5MPG! It's not about knowing everything, but simply being aware of what does and doesn't make sense. If multiple people are telling you the numbers don't work, it may simply be prudent to digest what they've stated and consider there may be other variables in play you aren't accounting for.
I don't think any of us are trying to be rude, getting bent out of shape, and certainly nobody is bashing. The message being conveyed is simply: Here's the data from official sources, it doesn't support your conclusion, so instead of doubling down, it makes more sense to take a step back and figure out why.
There is real world and there is lab world.
No, there is amateur data collected under insufficiently controlled conditions that causes one to draw spurious conclusions and then there is actual testing on dynometers under controlled conditions where every variable is accounted for where the ACTUAL impact of the specific product can be measured.
Originally Posted by tiger862
I believe in real world and use lab world as a reference.
What you appear to believe in is that the results of uncontrolled testing, as noted above, are more valid than those derived through strict scientific rigour which is entirely at odds with "reality" or the "real world". I've had guys tell me they've shot coyotes at 500 yards. Then you take them out to the range and they ask how far away that target is and you tell them 200 yards and they get REAL QUIET. Numbers can be pretty magic when you aren't actually in a position to properly measure them.
Originally Posted by tiger862
No 2 vehicles are the same.
No, but when an oil company runs a FLEET of vehicles under controlled conditions to SPECIFICALLY measure the impact of different formulations; ones PURPOSE BLENDED for the goal of improving fuel economy and their results list a range of 0.2-2%, how plausible do you think that makes a 33% improvement?
Originally Posted by tiger862
All I know is some get 17 average and I get 20.5 average. Since I quit logging and going with OLM as mine seems to be within 1 mpg either way I just check it every so often. I have gotten as high as 28 hwy with blend before and after suspected oil and never lower than 17 both hand calculated and dash. Real world shows oil made a difference (9k miles of data).
I'm not really sure what you are saying here, but again, given that you do not have strictly controlled conditions, don't have control over the quality or blend of fuel, don't have control over barometric pressure, temperature....etc chalking up a gain orders of magnitude beyond what's been proven in controlled testing should have you considering the idea that perhaps it is something else.
Originally Posted by tiger862
I don't know how I got brunt of comments about this dead issue as I just said run this OcI out and try another oil to see if improves. If it improves then stay with what works. Seems like some people get bent out of shape if they can't make the point of I know everything and no one else does. In order to stop the bashing I had to say maybe you are correct. I since have proved to out how bent out of shape people get over someone posting oil and fuel mileage can go hand in hand.
Because oil WILL NOT provide an improvement of fuel economy measurable by Average Joe. We are talking fractions of a MPG here. A 2% improvement on a vehicle that averages 24MPG is less than 0.5MPG! It's not about knowing everything, but simply being aware of what does and doesn't make sense. If multiple people are telling you the numbers don't work, it may simply be prudent to digest what they've stated and consider there may be other variables in play you aren't accounting for.
I don't think any of us are trying to be rude, getting bent out of shape, and certainly nobody is bashing. The message being conveyed is simply: Here's the data from official sources, it doesn't support your conclusion, so instead of doubling down, it makes more sense to take a step back and figure out why.
Originally Posted by tundraotto
Says up to 3% here going from 10W-40 to a 0W-20
https://cen.acs.org/business/specialty-chemicals/Engine-oil-becomes-critical-automakers/97/i5
That was a good read
Says up to 3% here going from 10W-40 to a 0W-20
https://cen.acs.org/business/specialty-chemicals/Engine-oil-becomes-critical-automakers/97/i5
That was a good read
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
I don't think any of us are trying to be rude, getting bent out of shape, and certainly nobody is bashing. The message being conveyed is simply: Here's the data from official sources, it doesn't support your conclusion, so instead of doubling down, it makes more sense to take a step back and figure out why.
Thank you Overkill
I don't think any of us are trying to be rude, getting bent out of shape, and certainly nobody is bashing. The message being conveyed is simply: Here's the data from official sources, it doesn't support your conclusion, so instead of doubling down, it makes more sense to take a step back and figure out why.
Thank you Overkill
It takes years and sometimes a decade + to train scientists and engineers. With the interweb we now live in an era where people without the appropriate training believe they can design experiments, collect, process and interpret meaningful data in at-home experiments. Science is alway full of A LOT of nuance within a particularly field such that even scientists trained in the same general field can not claim to be experts outside of their tiny little research area. Global warming, evolution, the earth being flat and now motor oil - seems to bring out the unqualified "home experts". With my science background all I can say is I'm not an expert on oil and I have to rely on those people who are experts on oil.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by tiger862
There is real world and there is lab world. I believe in real world and use lab world as a reference. No 2 vehicles are the same. All I know is some get 17 average and I get 20.5 average. Since I quit logging and going with OLM as mine seems to be within 1 mpg either way I just check it every so often. I have gotten as high as 28 hwy with blend before and after suspected oil and never lower than 17 both hand calculated and dash. Real world shows oil made a difference (9k miles of data). I don't know how I got brunt of comments about this dead issue as I just said run this OcI out and try another oil to see if improves. If it improves then stay with what works. Seems like some people get bent out of shape if they can't make the point of I know everything and no one else does. In order to stop the bashing I had to say maybe you are correct. I since have proved to out how bent out of shape people get over someone posting oil and fuel mileage can go hand in hand.
This is a common sentiment among many people, but it has a deep flaw that is poorly understood by them. The reality is that there isn't much of anything that can be measured in the "real world", if an entity wishes to do so they end up spending massive amounts of time and money chasing down and trying to control the myriad of variables present in an open environment. The greatest risk is that once such field tests are complete and the data turned over to the mathematicians and statisticians, they analyze the data and find that due to some unconsidered variable there is no statistical validity to the data. Trust me that this happens and I have seen it before. The mathematicians that analyze data are disconnected from the emotion and preconceived notions that an experimenter may carry into his testing.
Often you'd hear this from those who really don't understanding what constitutes a valid test: "I'm a 'real world" type of guy there buddy, that's where the rubber meets the road! That there 'lab testing" stuff is for you eggheads, I live out here in Realville and we deal with real life!" Or something like that. The reality is that these individuals are actually the ones that don't understand the real world, not the laboratory experimenters.They are the ones that do not understand what it means to control and isolate variables so that valid and statistically significant results can be obtained.
I haven't seen anyone get bent out of shape yet, maybe you are mistaking frustration with anger. Yes, oil and fuel economy can go hand-in-hand and this is why automakers and blenders are spending massive amounts of money eeking out what amount to relatively modest improvements in economy with less viscous oils. But the numbers they are obtaining with their efforts and money (while significant in the face of CAFE) are nowhere near significant enough for an untrained individual to demonstrate. And beyond that they are nowhere near the numbers we see some individuals report here on Bitog. I've seen some of the numbers be an entire order of magnitude different.
There is real world and there is lab world. I believe in real world and use lab world as a reference. No 2 vehicles are the same. All I know is some get 17 average and I get 20.5 average. Since I quit logging and going with OLM as mine seems to be within 1 mpg either way I just check it every so often. I have gotten as high as 28 hwy with blend before and after suspected oil and never lower than 17 both hand calculated and dash. Real world shows oil made a difference (9k miles of data). I don't know how I got brunt of comments about this dead issue as I just said run this OcI out and try another oil to see if improves. If it improves then stay with what works. Seems like some people get bent out of shape if they can't make the point of I know everything and no one else does. In order to stop the bashing I had to say maybe you are correct. I since have proved to out how bent out of shape people get over someone posting oil and fuel mileage can go hand in hand.
This is a common sentiment among many people, but it has a deep flaw that is poorly understood by them. The reality is that there isn't much of anything that can be measured in the "real world", if an entity wishes to do so they end up spending massive amounts of time and money chasing down and trying to control the myriad of variables present in an open environment. The greatest risk is that once such field tests are complete and the data turned over to the mathematicians and statisticians, they analyze the data and find that due to some unconsidered variable there is no statistical validity to the data. Trust me that this happens and I have seen it before. The mathematicians that analyze data are disconnected from the emotion and preconceived notions that an experimenter may carry into his testing.
Often you'd hear this from those who really don't understanding what constitutes a valid test: "I'm a 'real world" type of guy there buddy, that's where the rubber meets the road! That there 'lab testing" stuff is for you eggheads, I live out here in Realville and we deal with real life!" Or something like that. The reality is that these individuals are actually the ones that don't understand the real world, not the laboratory experimenters.They are the ones that do not understand what it means to control and isolate variables so that valid and statistically significant results can be obtained.
I haven't seen anyone get bent out of shape yet, maybe you are mistaking frustration with anger. Yes, oil and fuel economy can go hand-in-hand and this is why automakers and blenders are spending massive amounts of money eeking out what amount to relatively modest improvements in economy with less viscous oils. But the numbers they are obtaining with their efforts and money (while significant in the face of CAFE) are nowhere near significant enough for an untrained individual to demonstrate. And beyond that they are nowhere near the numbers we see some individuals report here on Bitog. I've seen some of the numbers be an entire order of magnitude different.
Originally Posted by kschachn
Originally Posted by tiger862
There is real world and there is lab world. I believe in real world and use lab world as a reference. No 2 vehicles are the same. All I know is some get 17 average and I get 20.5 average. Since I quit logging and going with OLM as mine seems to be within 1 mpg either way I just check it every so often. I have gotten as high as 28 hwy with blend before and after suspected oil and never lower than 17 both hand calculated and dash. Real world shows oil made a difference (9k miles of data). I don't know how I got brunt of comments about this dead issue as I just said run this OcI out and try another oil to see if improves. If it improves then stay with what works. Seems like some people get bent out of shape if they can't make the point of I know everything and no one else does. In order to stop the bashing I had to say maybe you are correct. I since have proved to out how bent out of shape people get over someone posting oil and fuel mileage can go hand in hand.
This is a common sentiment among many people, but it has a deep flaw that is poorly understood by them. The reality is that there isn't much of anything that can be measured in the "real world", if an entity wishes to do so they end up spending massive amounts of time and money chasing down and trying to control the myriad of variables present in an open environment. The greatest risk is that once such field tests are complete and the data turned over to the mathematicians and statisticians, they analyze the data and find that due to some unconsidered variable there is no statistical validity to the data. Trust me that this happens and I have seen it before. The mathematicians that analyze data are disconnected from the emotion and preconceived notions that an experimenter may carry into his testing.
Often you'd hear this from those who really don't understanding what constitutes a valid test: "I'm a 'real world" type of guy there buddy, that's where the rubber meets the road! That there 'lab testing" stuff is for you eggheads, I live out here in Realville and we deal with real life!" Or something like that. The reality is that these individuals are actually the ones that don't understand the real world, not the laboratory experimenters.They are the ones that do not understand what it means to control and isolate variables so that valid and statistically significant results can be obtained.
I haven't seen anyone get bent out of shape yet, maybe you are mistaking frustration with anger. Yes, oil and fuel economy can go hand-in-hand and this is why automakers and blenders are spending massive amounts of money eeking out what amount to relatively modest improvements in economy with less viscous oils. But the numbers they are obtaining with their efforts and money (while significant in the face of CAFE) are nowhere near significant enough for an untrained individual to demonstrate. And beyond that they are nowhere near the numbers we see some individuals report here on Bitog. I've seen some of the numbers be an entire order of magnitude different.
This really comes down to our education system - I'm not saying everyone needs to know and understand every aspect of science but every citizen should have a solid understanding on HOW science works and WHY it works. This is what's missing in with most of these people.....
Originally Posted by tiger862
There is real world and there is lab world. I believe in real world and use lab world as a reference. No 2 vehicles are the same. All I know is some get 17 average and I get 20.5 average. Since I quit logging and going with OLM as mine seems to be within 1 mpg either way I just check it every so often. I have gotten as high as 28 hwy with blend before and after suspected oil and never lower than 17 both hand calculated and dash. Real world shows oil made a difference (9k miles of data). I don't know how I got brunt of comments about this dead issue as I just said run this OcI out and try another oil to see if improves. If it improves then stay with what works. Seems like some people get bent out of shape if they can't make the point of I know everything and no one else does. In order to stop the bashing I had to say maybe you are correct. I since have proved to out how bent out of shape people get over someone posting oil and fuel mileage can go hand in hand.
This is a common sentiment among many people, but it has a deep flaw that is poorly understood by them. The reality is that there isn't much of anything that can be measured in the "real world", if an entity wishes to do so they end up spending massive amounts of time and money chasing down and trying to control the myriad of variables present in an open environment. The greatest risk is that once such field tests are complete and the data turned over to the mathematicians and statisticians, they analyze the data and find that due to some unconsidered variable there is no statistical validity to the data. Trust me that this happens and I have seen it before. The mathematicians that analyze data are disconnected from the emotion and preconceived notions that an experimenter may carry into his testing.
Often you'd hear this from those who really don't understanding what constitutes a valid test: "I'm a 'real world" type of guy there buddy, that's where the rubber meets the road! That there 'lab testing" stuff is for you eggheads, I live out here in Realville and we deal with real life!" Or something like that. The reality is that these individuals are actually the ones that don't understand the real world, not the laboratory experimenters.They are the ones that do not understand what it means to control and isolate variables so that valid and statistically significant results can be obtained.
I haven't seen anyone get bent out of shape yet, maybe you are mistaking frustration with anger. Yes, oil and fuel economy can go hand-in-hand and this is why automakers and blenders are spending massive amounts of money eeking out what amount to relatively modest improvements in economy with less viscous oils. But the numbers they are obtaining with their efforts and money (while significant in the face of CAFE) are nowhere near significant enough for an untrained individual to demonstrate. And beyond that they are nowhere near the numbers we see some individuals report here on Bitog. I've seen some of the numbers be an entire order of magnitude different.
This really comes down to our education system - I'm not saying everyone needs to know and understand every aspect of science but every citizen should have a solid understanding on HOW science works and WHY it works. This is what's missing in with most of these people.....
Originally Posted by SR5
Originally Posted by tundraotto
Says up to 3% here going from 10W-40 to a 0W-20
https://cen.acs.org/business/specialty-chemicals/Engine-oil-becomes-critical-automakers/97/i5
That was a good read
I agree. It also gives enough technical information to support the gist of the article. Thank you tundraotto.
Originally Posted by tundraotto
Says up to 3% here going from 10W-40 to a 0W-20
https://cen.acs.org/business/specialty-chemicals/Engine-oil-becomes-critical-automakers/97/i5
That was a good read
I agree. It also gives enough technical information to support the gist of the article. Thank you tundraotto.
Facts don't matter anymore, just my feelings and conclusions to incomplete/incorrect information.
Sequence VIE - Requires 19-39 percent improvement in fuel economy, depending on oil viscosity
ILSAC GF-6 motor oils will meet the requirements of modern engines currently unmet by GF-5, including improved fuel economy compared to motor oils meeting the GF-5 standard, and helping prevent LSPI and timing chain wear.
These are a few things that will change. Valvoline Daily Synthetic Blend is a fuel mileage oil so maybe it meets GF-6 already but can't label as such. Who knows.
https://www.motor.com/2019/05/get-ready-gf-6-motor-oil/
ILSAC GF-6 motor oils will meet the requirements of modern engines currently unmet by GF-5, including improved fuel economy compared to motor oils meeting the GF-5 standard, and helping prevent LSPI and timing chain wear.
These are a few things that will change. Valvoline Daily Synthetic Blend is a fuel mileage oil so maybe it meets GF-6 already but can't label as such. Who knows.
https://www.motor.com/2019/05/get-ready-gf-6-motor-oil/
Do you have any idea what you're talking about exactly, or are you just blindly copying and pasting from the article you linked? You made crucial factual errors in the assumption you've posted, especially when you say that the current Valvoline product is associated with GF-6B.
Hint, that relatively loosely written article does not support your notion that Valvoline Daily Synthetic Blend could possibly give a 19-39% fuel economy increase.
Originally Posted by tiger862
Sequence VIE - Requires 19-39 percent improvement in fuel economy, depending on oil viscosity
ILSAC GF-6 motor oils will meet the requirements of modern engines currently unmet by GF-5, including improved fuel economy compared to motor oils meeting the GF-5 standard, and helping prevent LSPI and timing chain wear.
These are a few things that will change. Valvoline Daily Synthetic Blend is a fuel mileage oil so maybe it meets GF-6 already but can't label as such. Who knows.
https://www.motor.com/2019/05/get-ready-gf-6-motor-oil/
Hint, that relatively loosely written article does not support your notion that Valvoline Daily Synthetic Blend could possibly give a 19-39% fuel economy increase.
Originally Posted by tiger862
Sequence VIE - Requires 19-39 percent improvement in fuel economy, depending on oil viscosity
ILSAC GF-6 motor oils will meet the requirements of modern engines currently unmet by GF-5, including improved fuel economy compared to motor oils meeting the GF-5 standard, and helping prevent LSPI and timing chain wear.
These are a few things that will change. Valvoline Daily Synthetic Blend is a fuel mileage oil so maybe it meets GF-6 already but can't label as such. Who knows.
https://www.motor.com/2019/05/get-ready-gf-6-motor-oil/
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted by tiger862
Sequence VIE - Requires 19-39 percent improvement in fuel economy, depending on oil viscosity
ILSAC GF-6 motor oils will meet the requirements of modern engines currently unmet by GF-5, including improved fuel economy compared to motor oils meeting the GF-5 standard, and helping prevent LSPI and timing chain wear.
These are a few things that will change. Valvoline Daily Synthetic Blend is a fuel mileage oil so maybe it meets GF-6 already but can't label as such. Who knows.
https://www.motor.com/2019/05/get-ready-gf-6-motor-oil/
This is the testing protocol:
https://www.swri.org/sites/default/files/sequence-vie-test.pdf
Quote
Fuel consumption is measured for six speed/load/temperature test conditions compared to an
SAE 20W-30 baseline (BL) lubricant to ensure consistent engine response.
• FEI 1, FEI 2 and FEI Sum (FEI 1 plus FEI 2) are calculated from those comparisons.
• The candidate lubricant is introduced and aged for 16 hours at aging conditions and then fuel
consumption is measured for six test conditions for FEI 1.
• The candidate lubricant is left in the engine and aged for 109 hours at aging conditions for FEI 2.
• Fuel consumption for each of the six test conditions for BL after.
You'll note the baseline lubricant is an SAE 20w-30; essentially an SAE 30.
Here's an SAE document on the test:
https://ballots.api.org/marketing/ballots/docs/eBallot-Seq-VIE-Ready-Prec-Matrix.pdf
Now, if I'm reading the slide on page 13 correctly, the range of improvement over baseline is ~0.6-3%
This replaced the current Sequence VID test, because the engine is no longer in production. The limits for the current version of the test are:
![[Linked Image]](https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/attachments/usergals/2020/03/full-21028-42153-screen_shot_2020_03_09_at_7.28.39_pm.png "[Linked Image]")
https://www.swri.org/sites/default/files/sequence-vid-test.pdf
Also based on the same baseline 20w-30. So I expect that the Motor article has forgotten a decimal place.
Sequence VIE - Requires 19-39 percent improvement in fuel economy, depending on oil viscosity
ILSAC GF-6 motor oils will meet the requirements of modern engines currently unmet by GF-5, including improved fuel economy compared to motor oils meeting the GF-5 standard, and helping prevent LSPI and timing chain wear.
These are a few things that will change. Valvoline Daily Synthetic Blend is a fuel mileage oil so maybe it meets GF-6 already but can't label as such. Who knows.
https://www.motor.com/2019/05/get-ready-gf-6-motor-oil/
This is the testing protocol:
https://www.swri.org/sites/default/files/sequence-vie-test.pdf
Quote
Fuel consumption is measured for six speed/load/temperature test conditions compared to an
SAE 20W-30 baseline (BL) lubricant to ensure consistent engine response.
• FEI 1, FEI 2 and FEI Sum (FEI 1 plus FEI 2) are calculated from those comparisons.
• The candidate lubricant is introduced and aged for 16 hours at aging conditions and then fuel
consumption is measured for six test conditions for FEI 1.
• The candidate lubricant is left in the engine and aged for 109 hours at aging conditions for FEI 2.
• Fuel consumption for each of the six test conditions for BL after.
You'll note the baseline lubricant is an SAE 20w-30; essentially an SAE 30.
Here's an SAE document on the test:
https://ballots.api.org/marketing/ballots/docs/eBallot-Seq-VIE-Ready-Prec-Matrix.pdf
Now, if I'm reading the slide on page 13 correctly, the range of improvement over baseline is ~0.6-3%
This replaced the current Sequence VID test, because the engine is no longer in production. The limits for the current version of the test are:
https://www.swri.org/sites/default/files/sequence-vid-test.pdf
Also based on the same baseline 20w-30. So I expect that the Motor article has forgotten a decimal place.
Originally Posted by kschachn
Do you have any idea what you're talking about exactly, or are you just blindly copying and pasting from the article you linked? You made crucial factual errors in the assumption you've posted, especially when you say that the current Valvoline product is associated with GF-6B.
Originally Posted by tiger862
Sequence VIE - Requires 19-39 percent improvement in fuel economy, depending on oil viscosity
ILSAC GF-6 motor oils will meet the requirements of modern engines currently unmet by GF-5, including improved fuel economy compared to motor oils meeting the GF-5 standard, and helping prevent LSPI and timing chain wear.
These are a few things that will change. Valvoline Daily Synthetic Blend is a fuel mileage oil so maybe it meets GF-6 already but can't label as such. Who knows.
https://www.motor.com/2019/05/get-ready-gf-6-motor-oil/
Where did I say 6b? There is a graph also that stated same thing. Times are changing for oils. I have read up on changes and looking forward to the change. Only thing that is said is modern engines and now instead of using the same test for fuel mileage they are now using an engine from an Impala 3.6 2013 if I remember correctly. I have made a few trips of 20 miles mostly hwy and a 2 tank average of 21.3 so this oil is not losing fuel mileage as it ages as I have seen in the past. You don't have to believe me but seen it in going longer miles between fill ups.
Do you have any idea what you're talking about exactly, or are you just blindly copying and pasting from the article you linked? You made crucial factual errors in the assumption you've posted, especially when you say that the current Valvoline product is associated with GF-6B.
Originally Posted by tiger862
Sequence VIE - Requires 19-39 percent improvement in fuel economy, depending on oil viscosity
ILSAC GF-6 motor oils will meet the requirements of modern engines currently unmet by GF-5, including improved fuel economy compared to motor oils meeting the GF-5 standard, and helping prevent LSPI and timing chain wear.
These are a few things that will change. Valvoline Daily Synthetic Blend is a fuel mileage oil so maybe it meets GF-6 already but can't label as such. Who knows.
https://www.motor.com/2019/05/get-ready-gf-6-motor-oil/
Where did I say 6b? There is a graph also that stated same thing. Times are changing for oils. I have read up on changes and looking forward to the change. Only thing that is said is modern engines and now instead of using the same test for fuel mileage they are now using an engine from an Impala 3.6 2013 if I remember correctly. I have made a few trips of 20 miles mostly hwy and a 2 tank average of 21.3 so this oil is not losing fuel mileage as it ages as I have seen in the past. You don't have to believe me but seen it in going longer miles between fill ups.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted by tiger862
Where did I say 6b? There is a graph also that stated same thing. Times are changing for oils. I have read up on changes and looking forward to the change. Only thing that is said is modern engines and now instead of using the same test for fuel mileage they are now using an engine from an Impala 3.6 2013 if I remember correctly. I have made a few trips of 20 miles mostly hwy and a 2 tank average of 21.3 so this oil is not losing fuel mileage as it ages as I have seen in the past. You don't have to believe me but seen it in going longer miles between fill ups.
There are two versions of the Fuel Economy test:
One for GF-6A (regular oils):
https://www.swri.org/sites/default/files/sequence-vie-test.pdf
One for GF-6B (low viscosity oils):
https://www.swri.org/sites/default/files/sequence-vif-test.pdf
These replace the existing Sequence VID test and I expect the limits are roughly the same, which is consistent with the SAE document. So the folks at Motor missed putting in a decimal or their source material is erroneous.
Where did I say 6b? There is a graph also that stated same thing. Times are changing for oils. I have read up on changes and looking forward to the change. Only thing that is said is modern engines and now instead of using the same test for fuel mileage they are now using an engine from an Impala 3.6 2013 if I remember correctly. I have made a few trips of 20 miles mostly hwy and a 2 tank average of 21.3 so this oil is not losing fuel mileage as it ages as I have seen in the past. You don't have to believe me but seen it in going longer miles between fill ups.
There are two versions of the Fuel Economy test:
One for GF-6A (regular oils):
https://www.swri.org/sites/default/files/sequence-vie-test.pdf
One for GF-6B (low viscosity oils):
https://www.swri.org/sites/default/files/sequence-vif-test.pdf
These replace the existing Sequence VID test and I expect the limits are roughly the same, which is consistent with the SAE document. So the folks at Motor missed putting in a decimal or their source material is erroneous.
Yes the fuel economy improvement value they give in that article is wrong by an order of magnitude.
Physics still matters.
Physics still matters.
- Status
