Valvoline Extended Protection HM is a loaded GTL

[I<3oil]

Wow that Moly level is pretty surprising. I had no idea Valvoline was using any GTL either. Thanks for posting!

Why surprising? It's most likely moly dimer and Valvoline likes the moly, we know this from other VOA/UOAs.

 

[Scott S]

If Valvoline is using a GTL base, how come the ad pack is loaded up? Compared to Pennzoil, or even Mobil 1 that doesn't use a GTL base..

 

[kschachn]

If Valvoline is using a GTL base, how come the ad pack is loaded up? Compared to Pennzoil, or even Mobil 1 that doesn't use a GTL base..

Base stock contributes to things like oxidative stability and deposit resistance, or to the cold-weather performance. After that not so much. Many of the performance requirements for an approval or license are additive dependent. Especially wear.

And ExxonMobil does use GTL.

 

[KCJeep]

If Valvoline is using a GTL base, how come the ad pack is loaded up? Compared to Pennzoil, or even Mobil 1 that doesn't use a GTL base..

I missed that the VOA is 0w20. It likely has more additives because of that. The thinner an oil gets, the more it depends on the additive package to properly protect.

The 5w30 I'm interested in still says GTL on the SDS, but I bet it has a moly level similar to the 5w30 EP, around 175 ppm.

 

[ltslimjim]

I missed that the VOA is 0w20. It likely has more additives because of that. The thinner an oil gets, the more it depends on the additive package to properly protect.

The 5w30 I'm interested in still says GTL on the SDS, but I bet it has a moly level similar to the 5w30 EP, around 175 ppm.

There’s a way to find out

 

[Zee09]

I missed that the VOA is 0w20. It likely has more additives because of that. The thinner an oil gets, the more it depends on the additive package to properly protect.

The 5w30 I'm interested in still says GTL on the SDS, but I bet it has a moly level similar to the 5w30 EP, around 175 ppm.

You and your GTL fetish...geez..

 

[Scott S]

Base stock contributes to things like oxidative stability and deposit resistance, or to the cold-weather performance. After that not so much. Many of the performance requirements for an approval or license are additive dependent. Especially wear.

And ExxonMobil does use GTL.

So how come if Mobil One uses the same base stock Valvoline has more of an ad pack?

 

[OVERKILL]

So how come if Mobil One uses the same base stock Valvoline has more of an ad pack?

You can't determine that from a VOA, as @kschachn noted, all you are seeing is decomposed metallics, you aren't getting the actual formula of the additive package.

 

[kschachn]

So how come if Mobil One uses the same base stock Valvoline has more of an ad pack?

I didn’t say they use the same base stocks, only that ExxonMobil does use GTL. Base stocks are always a mixture.

Valvoline and ExxonMobil blend to a performance and price target. There is more than one target and more than one way to get there.

 

[Overfill]

All I am seeing is higher than average Molybdenum on the VOA for an API SP oil. Sure, that's neat.
"Lowering their additives"? - There's also additive packages these days that don't contain a lot of metal.
@kschachn has always just tried to keep people's reasoning in check--keep people from being mislead.

Eg. Folks may want an oil with moly. If it was all for pure want and no reason, he wouldn't challenge so much. There's a lot of lurkers for our forum that know basically nothing.

 

[Sandstorm]

Let's be clear once more nobody has claimed or in their correct State of mind will ever claim that a VOA or SDS is a recipe for an oil. But I don't think anyone in their correct State of mind will also deny the fact that those are valuable data points.

 

[kschachn]

Let's be clear once more nobody has claimed or in their correct State of mind will ever claim that a VOA or SDS is a recipe for an oil. But I don't think anyone in their correct State of mind will also deny the fact that those are valuable data points.

More like reading tea leaves. For example, on the PDS or VOA it’s quite likely to be an incomplete picture. What molybdenum compounds are represented by that elemental analysis? No one knows for sure. It’s literally impossible to know from the VOA, much as it’s impossible to know what a vase looked like before you smashed it to dust. By reading the amount of the element you can guess for some of them. It’s a pretty good guess for ZDDP. But even there, many nonmetallic additives will not appear on an ICP analysis.

And to me the SDS tea leaves are even less clear. As someone who at one time wrote them for a living, I can tell you that they are not for back-engineering a product. They are for first responders, emergency personnel and for general toxicity and flammability information. No company, ever, will divulge proprietary information in an SDS. So if the SDS today uses a CAS number for a GTL-derived hydrocarbon but tomorrow the company makes an allowed interchange to a different but similar chain length and similar property hydrocarbon, that SDS may or may not be updated since the toxicity and flammability properties have not changed. In fact, if a company can achieve the safety goal of an SDS but at the same time deceive a competitor then that can happen.

Plus don’t forget that an SDS is primarily for toxic materials. Non-toxic materials are not required to be listed. This comes up now and then in regards to base stocks for oils since many esters are not toxic (at least not toxic enough).

Having said that, yes you can read some of the tea leaves some of the time.

 

[Sandstorm]

More like reading tea leaves. For example, on the PDS or VOA it’s quite likely to be an incomplete picture. What molybdenum compounds are represented by that elemental analysis? No one knows for sure. It’s literally impossible to know from the VOA, much as it’s impossible to know what a vase looked like before you smashed it to dust. By reading the amount of the element you can guess for some of them. It’s a pretty good guess for ZDDP. But even there, many nonmetallic additives will not appear on an ICP analysis.

And to me the SDS tea leaves are even less clear. As someone who at one time wrote them for a living, I can tell you that they are not for back-engineering a product. They are for first responders, emergency personnel and for general toxicity and flammability information. No company, ever, will divulge proprietary information in an SDS. So if the SDS today uses a CAS number for a GTL-derived hydrocarbon but tomorrow the company makes an allowed interchange to a different but similar chain length and similar property hydrocarbon, that SDS may or may not be updated since the toxicity and flammability properties have not changed. In fact, if a company can achieve the safety goal of an SDS but at the same time deceive a competitor then that can happen.

Plus don’t forget that an SDS is primarily for toxic materials. Non-toxic materials are not required to be listed. This comes up now and then in regards to base stocks for oils since many esters are not toxic (at least not toxic enough).

Ok- my friend! Let's call them tea leaves and make you happy!
I think we are saying the same thing but saying it differently! I again happen to agree with what you just said. You elaborated on what I said which I thank you for!
It reminds me of Rumi's great story of Enab.

https://thelevant.wordpress.com/2011/01/28/angur-enab-or-grape-a-story-from-rumi/

That's why I still value your posts.

 

[kschachn]

I also think that the tea leaves of an SDS are more clear when it’s involving different base stock Groups. But between the different methods of producing Group III? No way, at least not in my mind. That’s better left to the marketing material. But never forget that the technical driver is API Annex E, not the SDS.

 

[Revving2Redline]

So nothing is definite yet? Might have to wait for Scott Kilmer to chime in and see what he says. (kidding)

 

[Doc8404]

More like reading tea leaves. For example, on the PDS or VOA it’s quite likely to be an incomplete picture. What molybdenum compounds are represented by that elemental analysis? No one knows for sure. It’s literally impossible to know from the VOA, much as it’s impossible to know what a vase looked like before you smashed it to dust. By reading the amount of the element you can guess for some of them. It’s a pretty good guess for ZDDP. But even there, many nonmetallic additives will not appear on an ICP analysis.

And to me the SDS tea leaves are even less clear. As someone who at one time wrote them for a living, I can tell you that they are not for back-engineering a product. They are for first responders, emergency personnel and for general toxicity and flammability information. No company, ever, will divulge proprietary information in an SDS. So if the SDS today uses a CAS number for a GTL-derived hydrocarbon but tomorrow the company makes an allowed interchange to a different but similar chain length and similar property hydrocarbon, that SDS may or may not be updated since the toxicity and flammability properties have not changed. In fact, if a company can achieve the safety goal of an SDS but at the same time deceive a competitor then that can happen.

Plus don’t forget that an SDS is primarily for toxic materials. Non-toxic materials are not required to be listed. This comes up now and then in regards to base stocks for oils since many esters are not toxic (at least not toxic enough).

Having said that, yes you can read some of the tea leaves some of the time.

Sidenote: Yes. SDSs are for toxic materials. Primarily.

https://www.chemicalbook.com/msds/water.htm

 

[Overfill]

Thank you for the VOA, Sandstorm

 

[Ronin73]

I bet it has a moly level similar to the 5w30 EP, around 175 ppm.

Are you referring to the Valvoline EP 5w30? If so, it doesn't have 175ppm Moly it has 315ppm.

 

[kschachn]

Sidenote: Yes. SDSs are for toxic materials. Primarily.

https://www.chemicalbook.com/msds/water.htm

Yes I remember the first time we got one of those from Aldrich for HPLC water. More amusing than anything. You see that sometimes on compounds that aren’t USP.

 

[KCJeep]

Are you referring to the Valvoline EP 5w30? If so, it doesn't have 175ppm Moly it has 315ppm.

Really? Man I am way behind the curve.