Switching to 5w30

[kschachn]

The Valvoline Extended Protection has a very very solid additive package, probably the best I’ve seen and yet at a reasonable price with frequent sales. (PS - regular Valvoline Advanced is almost as solid an add pack as the extended protection, and the restore & protect is almost the same as the Extended Protection as well. I play the middle ground with the EP but I also have a few 12qt garage boxes of the 5W30 Advanced for summer use. Living by the Canadian border, I do use 0W20/0W30 in the winters as I need the cold start protection.

I would suggest if you live in Georgia, stay with 5W30 year round. In that state you won’t ever come even close to availing yourself of the low temp starting advantage that 0W offers. 5W30 will offer great protection for your car and keep it/you happy for many miles to come.

Where are you seeing additive packages to make this comparison? And then after seeing them, how do you make exact predictions of future performance based on what you see ("almost as solid")?

 

[stwremains]

Where are you seeing additive packages to make this comparison? And then after seeing them, how do you make exact predictions of future performance based on what you see ("almost as solid")?

Why do I get the feeling you’re just trolling? All you’ve done is nit pick anything I say and poke around with disbelief.

Are you unfamiliar with the VOA database on this very forum, or the plentiful resources on the internet in which to find the add pack info for a given oil based on a VOA? Of course I don’t have an official manufacturers top secret formulation bulletin listing every ingredient and its exact parts per million per quart of oil. We use VOAs to get an idea of how solid an add pack is.

Valvoline Advanced, Extended Protection, and Restore&Protect are markedly similar - which is all I said. Feel free to compare the many VOAs showing small to no deviations in the additives used in each oil named.

My comments are my subjective view based on objective information. Everyone has a bias! I’d appreciate if you’d just share your opinion politely instead of troll me constantly about mine.

 

[dippschtick]

Why do I get the feeling you’re just trolling? All you’ve done is nit pick anything I say and poke around with disbelief.

Are you unfamiliar with the VOA database on this very forum, or the plentiful resources on the internet in which to find the add pack info for a given oil based on a VOA? Of course I don’t have an official manufacturers top secret formulation bulletin listing every ingredient and its exact parts per million per quart of oil. We use VOAs to get an idea of how solid an add pack is.

Valvoline Advanced, Extended Protection, and Restore&Protect are markedly similar - which is all I said. Feel free to compare the many VOAs showing small to no deviations in the additives used in each oil named.

My comments are my subjective view based on objective information. Everyone has a bias! I’d appreciate if you’d just share your opinion politely instead of troll me constantly about mine.

Welcome to BITOG!

 

[kschachn]

Why do I get the feeling you’re just trolling? All you’ve done is nit pick anything I say and poke around with disbelief.

Are you unfamiliar with the VOA database on this very forum, or the plentiful resources on the internet in which to find the add pack info for a given oil based on a VOA? Of course I don’t have an official manufacturers top secret formulation bulletin listing every ingredient and its exact parts per million per quart of oil. We use VOAs to get an idea of how solid an add pack is.

Valvoline Advanced, Extended Protection, and Restore&Protect are markedly similar - which is all I said. Feel free to compare the many VOAs showing small to no deviations in the additives used in each oil named.

My comments are my subjective view based on objective information. Everyone has a bias! I’d appreciate if you’d just share your opinion politely instead of troll me constantly about mine.

Because people come on here all the time and extol the virtues of "additive packages" based on a spectrographic analysis of certain elements from decomposed compounds. This is not the additive package. For one thing, there is an increasing use of non-metallic additives, and you're not going to test for those elements in a base composed of the same elements. Even when the compounds do have metallic elements then you do not always know what the original molecules were. There are different performance properties of compounds composed of the same elements. One cannot see "a dose of moly" or a "slug of boron" and then conclude one oils is "almost as solid" as another. You keep going on about "additives" when you're not seeing a single one in that VOA.

A $30 spectrographic analysis is not the way comparative oil performance is judged. How many of the Sequence tests or manufacturer approvals are based on such an analysis? Plus how are you incorporating the base stock composition into your predictions? That's also significant in performance.

And I'm not trolling I'm asking you to substantiate a statement you yourself made.

 

[kschachn]

Aaaaaaaand sure enough we're off topic!

The OP's question of "thick vs. thin" was answered long ago. Actually way before this thread was even posted.

 

[stwremains]

Because people come on here all the time and extol the virtues of "additive packages" based on a spectrographic analysis of certain elements from decomposed compounds. This is not the additive package. For one thing, there is an increasing use of non-metallic additives, and you're not going to test for those elements in a base composed of the same elements. Even when the compounds do have metallic elements then you do not always know what the original molecules were. There are different performance properties of compounds composed of the same elements. One cannot see "a dose of moly" or a "slug of boron" and then conclude one oils is "almost as solid" as another. You keep going on about "additives" when you're not seeing a single one in that VOA.

A $30 spectrographic analysis is not the way comparative oil performance is judged. How many of the Sequence tests or manufacturer approvals are based on such an analysis? Plus how are you incorporating the base stock composition into your predictions? That's also significant in performance.

And I'm not trolling I'm asking you to substantiate a statement you yourself made.

I understand your irritation in a way, but the vast majority of us on this forum and in day to day life are not formulating oils, nor are we experts in the field of tribology.

I used the term additive package, because that is how most laymen I have encountered both here and in the real world refer to the elements seen on a VOA or UOA. Though this level of analysis is not the best, they certainly are not useless and they can provide insights into what oils will/should protect better than others. There’s enough testimony to that reality in this forum that it should be quite apparent.

 

[kschachn]

I understand your irritation in a way, but the vast majority of us on this forum and in day to day life are not formulating oils, nor are we experts in the field of tribology.

I used the term additive package, because that is how most laymen I have encountered both here and in the real world refer to the elements seen on a VOA or UOA. Though this level of analysis is not the best, they certainly are not useless and they can provide insights into what oils will/should protect better than others. There’s enough testimony to that reality in this forum that it should be quite apparent.

I guess I tend to rely on what approvals an oil has or does not have to gauge the performance. I do think that in terms of relative quality differences a VOA is indeed useless unless you’re looking at a truly deficient oil (think Bullseye). If I see 35ppm of molybdenum in one oil and 82ppm in another I’m not able to translate that into anything meaningful to myself. Perhaps you are. Or that one has boron and one does not. I am however able to judge that one oil with VW 504 00 approval does have demonstrated performance over one that does not. But again I am not able to translate spectrographic analysis numbers into a relative gauge that shows one is better than the other.

 

[Fa24wrx]

I guess I tend to rely on what approvals an oil has or does not have to gauge the performance. I do think that in terms of relative quality differences a VOA is indeed useless unless you’re looking at a truly deficient oil (think Bullseye). If I see 35ppm of molybdenum in one oil and 82ppm in another I’m not able to translate that into anything meaningful to myself. Perhaps you are. Or that one has boron and one does not. I am however able to judge that one oil with VW 504 00 approval does have demonstrated performance over one that does not. But again I am not able to translate spectrographic analysis numbers into a relative gauge that shows one is better than the other.

Another issue people new to this have: we may not know how the different approvals differ. How about posting links to those discussions since that's your favorite trick? There's a reason people think you're a troll. Many of us are new to this forum and learning about oils. I have used the search feature and still can't find some info. So, either be helpful, or figure out why you're active on this forum

 

[Danh]

Another issue people new to this have: we may not know how the different approvals differ. How about posting links to those discussions since that's your favorite trick? There's a reason people think you're a troll. Many of us are new to this forum and learning about oils. I have used the search feature and still can't find some info. So, either be helpful, or figure out why you're active on this forum

Gosh, and I thought 20+years and 28,000 posts on this forum counted for something. Conversely, I do know that 3 months and 100 posts should be accompanied by some humility and limited snarkiness.

 

[kschachn]

Another issue people new to this have: we may not know how the different approvals differ. How about posting links to those discussions since that's your favorite trick? There's a reason people think you're a troll. Many of us are new to this forum and learning about oils. I have used the search feature and still can't find some info. So, either be helpful, or figure out why you're active on this forum

One good reference is the Afton Specification Handbook, I believe someone posted it here in the past. Or perhaps find it online.

Individual approval and license requirements can also be found online but the Handbook has many in one place.

 

[Fa24wrx]

Gosh, and I thought 20+years and 28,000 posts on this forum counted for something. Conversely, I do know that 3 months and 100 posts should be accompanied by some humility and limited snarkiness.

Lol Humility?? Because somebody has been on an OIL forum for 20 years? How about either use the forum for education sharing like they are intended, or keep it moving? There would be limited snark if people who SO much "experience" were more useful.

 

[Fa24wrx]

One good reference is the Afton Specification Handbook, I believe someone posted it here in the past. Or perhaps find it online.

Individual approval and license requirements can also be found online but the Handbook has many in one place.

Thank you. That can actually be helpful since I now have a handbook to look for. Why did we have to do this whole game to get to the point? You could have said " hey, instead of looking at VOA for add packs, it may be more useful to look at different approvals and how they differ in performance/protection. Here is a source with some of this info ____."

 

[kschachn]

Here is a thread about Porsche A40 approval, one of @OVERKILL favorite subjects. It's a little dated but still interesting:

Porsche A40 Testing Protocol

Found this while looking for the price of some of the Euro approvals: Quote: Here is Porsche A40 testing procedure: This test will last 203 hours. The engine, and the oil, will go through: - 4 times the simulation of 35 hours of summer driving, - 4 times the simulation of 13.5 hours of winter...

bobistheoilguy.com

 

[Fa24wrx]

Here is a thread about Porsche A40 approval, one of @OVERKILL favorite subjects. It's a little dated but still interesting:

Porsche A40 Testing Protocol

Found this while looking for the price of some of the Euro approvals: Quote: Here is Porsche A40 testing procedure: This test will last 203 hours. The engine, and the oil, will go through: - 4 times the simulation of 35 hours of summer driving, - 4 times the simulation of 13.5 hours of winter...

bobistheoilguy.com

Sweet. I am looking at the Afton Specification Handbook. Unfortunately, the 2019 is the only one I found that goes up to API SN but still very cool info to compare things. I'll look at that thread

 

[stwremains]

Thank you. That can actually be helpful since I now have a handbook to look for. Why did we have to do thos whole game to get to the point? You could have said " hey, instead of looking at VOA for add packs, it may be more useful to look at different approvals and how they differ in performance/protection. Here is a source with some of this info ____."

Even various approvals aren’t the end game of determining a good oil. There are some who ardently claim that euro spec oils are better in general than non euro oils, and some who disregard the api spec or the dexos certification, instead rallying around an approval by a manufacturer of mediocre vehicles like VW whose “approval” of a certain oil doesn’t mean much when they can’t make a engine that consistently proves to be reliable, let alone makes a top 100 list of best or most reliable engines. GM who has several of the top engines ever made, has a right to tour the dexos approval (which is hard to get by the way) - and I appreciate a dexos1 Gen2 or API GF-6 rating far more than ACEA or German car endorsements.

PS: many Valvoline products carry both dexos and API SP-GF6 ratings or better as well some euro ratings.

Yes I’m a fan boy, Valvoline is OG in engine oil and although I am open to branching out and I like other brands too, Valvoline is my go to. It’s proven itself.

 

[Fa24wrx]

Even various approvals aren’t the end game of determining a good oil. There are some who ardently claim that euro spec oils are better in general than non euro oils, and some who disregard the api spec or the dexos certification, instead rallying around an approval by a manufacturer of mediocre vehicles like VW whose “approval” of a certain oil doesn’t mean much when they can’t make a engine that consistently proves to be reliable, let alone makes a top 100 list of best or most reliable engines. GM who has several of the top engines ever made, has a right to tour the dexos approval (which is hard to get by the way) - and I appreciate a dexos1 Gen2 or API GF-6 rating far more than ACEA or German car endorsements.

I mean, we get below freezing temps every winter. I'm still looking for a solid 0W30 with several certs. I think Mobil 1 may have it. I know valvoline has one too.

You're the first I've seen say you don't care for the German/euro certs. I think they have their place but maybe the reliability thing is more of a complexity issue rather than an oiling issue.

 

[stwremains]

I mean, we get below freezing temps every winter. I'm still looking for a solid 0W30 with several certs. I think Mobil 1 may have it. I know valvoline has one too.

You're the first I've seen say you don't care for the German/euro certs. I think they have their place but maybe the reliability thing is more of a complexity issue rather than an oiling issue.

You could be right! Just my view on it having dealt with way too many “junk” euro vehicles. And if a euro spec is so much better than API, it should include API cert. some do, many don’t.

 

[kschachn]

Even various approvals aren’t the end game of determining a good oil. There are some who ardently claim that euro spec oils are better in general than non euro oils, and some who disregard the api spec or the dexos certification, instead rallying around an approval by a manufacturer of mediocre vehicles like VW whose “approval” of a certain oil doesn’t mean much when they can’t make a engine that consistently proves to be reliable, let alone makes a top 100 list of best or most reliable engines. GM who has several of the top engines ever made, has a right to tour the dexos approval (which is hard to get by the way) - and I appreciate a dexos1 Gen2 or API GF-6 rating far more than ACEA or German car endorsements.

I think dexos is a useful license. I have used a dexos oil in my vehicles multiple times.

And whether a manufacturer assembles "mediocre vehicles" is irrelevant to the testing requirements for an oil approval. Brand loyalty is different than how an oil is tested to resist oxidation or ring deposits.

 

[Danh]

Lol Humility?? Because somebody has been on an OIL forum for 20 years? How about either use the forum for education sharing like they are intended, or keep it moving? There would be limited snark if people who SO much "experience" were more useful.

Guess we all have different ways of introducing ourselves to a new community.

 

[kschachn]

You could be right! Just my view on it having dealt with way too many “junk” euro vehicles. And if a euro spec is so much better than API, it should include API cert. some do, many don’t.

API licenses are irrelevant to the manufacturer approvals you're referring to. Different goals, different requirements and different applications.