UOA Valvoline EP 5W30 vs Amsoil SS 5W30 1.6LT
- Thread starter JWB
- Start date
Still in 5W30 range for a car that calla for 0w20.
Thanks for posting!
Is this a 1.6L Turbo DI?
Maybe some fuel dilution? Wonder what's the voa for these oils to compare.
Either way, Valvoline cSt in this report is better or almost same as Amsoil.
I use Valvoline EP 5W-30 in my v8 Tundra but never done a UOA.
Is this a 1.6L Turbo DI?
Maybe some fuel dilution? Wonder what's the voa for these oils to compare.
Either way, Valvoline cSt in this report is better or almost same as Amsoil.
I use Valvoline EP 5W-30 in my v8 Tundra but never done a UOA.
Yes.
I have it in NY 2020 Tundra. Smooth
dnewton3
Staff member
The wear traits for this engine are pretty typical of small GTDI engines. Nothing wrong with the results. Engine and lube in good shape.
***********
A word of caution ...
There is no ability to claim one oil is better or worse than another here; that's not the kind of info you can glean from this series of UOAs. The title of this thread would infer you can do so, but that's a fools errand. What we can learn from these two UOAs is that the lubes did a decent job at what they are supposed to do. Nothing more or less. A sample size of one is not science for comparison; it's hyperbole.
***********
A word of caution ...
There is no ability to claim one oil is better or worse than another here; that's not the kind of info you can glean from this series of UOAs. The title of this thread would infer you can do so, but that's a fools errand. What we can learn from these two UOAs is that the lubes did a decent job at what they are supposed to do. Nothing more or less. A sample size of one is not science for comparison; it's hyperbole.
Well, if I did 50 back to back with same two products my guess is results would be the same. Which means using Valvoline EP would save me $54 every 4100 miles.
Decision is after many, many UOAs I have done over a 4 to 5 k run any decent oil will provide good results. I also now know Amsoil is not the worth the money in shorter runs. I would never do long runs anyway. CAFE is not getting me
dnewton3
Staff member
In micro-analysis, there's a lot that needs to be done properly to make reasonable conclusions ...
Your comment of "guessing" is accurate; that's all it would be is a complete and total guess. You have absolutely zero understanding of either lube from only one sample each. This is the danger inherrent with people who don't understand statistical processes; they think a little of something tells them a lot, and it couldn't be further from the truth.
If you did 50 UOAs back to back (let's say every 5k miles), then you would have very good data on that one lube as a baseline; knowing it's average, mean, stdev and trends.
But then you'd have to do another large set (minimum 30 samples) of the other lube to get a good understanding of the standard deviation, etc for that product as well.
But you'd have to make sure you bought enough oil all at the same time for the sample runs, because even running 30 sample UOAs at 5k mile intervals would be 150k miles of testing; a lot can change in 150k miles in terms of product (lube) changes. Such as the API content limits would likely change (think of SM, SN, SP all have happened in a matter of years that most folks wouldn't even approach 150k miles of use on their vehicle). It's pretty typical for most folks to run 15k miles or so a year, so 150k miles of testing would take TEN YEARS of use in the field.
So by the time you "test" your baseline oil for 150k miles over ten years, and then do another 10 years and 150k miles for the second lube, you've got 20 years under your belt. In that time, it's completely likely that vehicle isn't even likely to be in your garage any longer because it was either in an accident, or left your possession due to boredom or rust or some other cause for you to get rid of it.
My point is that to really use UOAs as a means of specifically, accurately comparing/contrasting one lube to another, most any normal person will NEVER, EVER have enough time/money to properly collect the data. Let alone then know how to process the data with training of statistical analysis. Hence, UOAs are a terrible way to judge one lube against another using micro-data.
UOAs are great tools for comparing/contrasting the relative health of the lube and engine in macro-analysis; that of putting the individual data up against known standards, but that's a whole different topic of macro-data analysis.
Similar threads
