Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Anytime someone squaks about PAO base content, the Forum takes a step backwards.
+1
Anytime someone squaks about PAO base content, the Forum takes a step backwards.
+1
Valvoline - Myth vs Reality
- Thread starter Art_Vandelay
- Start date
- Status
I like Valvoline in spite of their new, very questionable ads about 8X better wear than M-1 etc. I have a buddy thats been a master mechanic for years and always used it in his many, many cars. Tells me there was no top end wear in his 250K mile Cherokee, etc, when he replaceced valve cover gaskets. Many stories like that from what he's seen.
--All anecdotes but it has to sway my opinion after so many years. I'm only human. That, and I usually see good UOAs, etc. I guess I don't care much about the base oil source.
May not be the best of the best for all engines but it seems to work good and is readily available.
Just my 2 cents.
--All anecdotes but it has to sway my opinion after so many years. I'm only human. That, and I usually see good UOAs, etc. I guess I don't care much about the base oil source.
May not be the best of the best for all engines but it seems to work good and is readily available.
Just my 2 cents.
The way Valvoline makes synthetic sound, you'd think Bill in Utah wrote the document for them.
Originally Posted By: river_rat
I like Valvoline in spite of their new, very questionable ads about 8X better wear than M-1 etc. I have a buddy thats been a master mechanic for years and always used it in his many, many cars. Tells me there was no top end wear in his 250K mile Cherokee, etc, when he replaceced valve cover gaskets. Many stories like that from what he's seen.
--All anecdotes but it has to sway my opinion after so many years. I'm only human. That, and I usually see good UOAs, etc. I guess I don't care much about the base oil source.
May not be the best of the best for all engines but it seems to work good and is readily available.
Just my 2 cents.
river_rat, not questioning your post or your friend, but I think the true test is the test of time in an engine that's hard on oil like a Toyota Sludger. The Cherokee engines are reasonably easy on oil, long lasting engines with any oil choice.
Originally Posted By: Art_Vandelay
The way Valvoline makes synthetic sound, you'd think Bill in Utah wrote the document for them.
Them's fightin' words...
I like Valvoline in spite of their new, very questionable ads about 8X better wear than M-1 etc. I have a buddy thats been a master mechanic for years and always used it in his many, many cars. Tells me there was no top end wear in his 250K mile Cherokee, etc, when he replaceced valve cover gaskets. Many stories like that from what he's seen.
--All anecdotes but it has to sway my opinion after so many years. I'm only human. That, and I usually see good UOAs, etc. I guess I don't care much about the base oil source.
May not be the best of the best for all engines but it seems to work good and is readily available.
Just my 2 cents.
river_rat, not questioning your post or your friend, but I think the true test is the test of time in an engine that's hard on oil like a Toyota Sludger. The Cherokee engines are reasonably easy on oil, long lasting engines with any oil choice.
Originally Posted By: Art_Vandelay
The way Valvoline makes synthetic sound, you'd think Bill in Utah wrote the document for them.
Them's fightin' words...
Originally Posted By: river_rat
I like Valvoline in spite of their new, very questionable ads about 8X better wear than M-1 etc. . . .
It's the Castrol Dipstick guys that are 8X better. The quiche-eating Valvoline guys are only 4X better.
I like Valvoline in spite of their new, very questionable ads about 8X better wear than M-1 etc. . . .
It's the Castrol Dipstick guys that are 8X better. The quiche-eating Valvoline guys are only 4X better.
Originally Posted By: tig1
ARCOgraphite said:I wish my Toyota could take a 40wt, I'd run M1 at the drop of a hat. 2 tick toe[/quote
Allof the M1 oils are high in PAO.
http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Synthetics/Mobil_1_Why_Synthetics.aspx
Apparently PAO content doesn't equate to being able to pass basic API specifications though.
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: tig1
ARCOgraphite said:I wish my Toyota could take a 40wt, I'd run M1 at the drop of a hat. 2 tick toe[/quote
Allof the M1 oils are high in PAO.
http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Synthetics/Mobil_1_Why_Synthetics.aspx
Apparently PAO content doesn't equate to being able to pass basic API specifications though.
Which API Spec. test did did M1 fail?
Originally Posted By: LoneRanger
I've never liked Valvoline anyhow. Low end stuff, if you ask me.
Yea, my brother only got 390,000 miles out of his F150 using Valvoline before it took a dump
I've never liked Valvoline anyhow. Low end stuff, if you ask me.
Yea, my brother only got 390,000 miles out of his F150 using Valvoline before it took a dump
Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Originally Posted By: tig1
ARCOgraphite said:I wish my Toyota could take a 40wt, I'd run M1 at the drop of a hat. 2 tick toe[/quote
Allof the M1 oils are high in PAO.
http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Synthetics/Mobil_1_Why_Synthetics.aspx
Apparently PAO content doesn't equate to being able to pass basic API specifications though.
Which API Spec. test did did M1 fail?
Seq. IVA. Didn't you hear?
they're just telling us what we already know. "Conventional" nowadays is far better than 15 years ago, and is hydroprocessed group 2. synthetic is just more highly processed, but still basically does the same job, has slightly better cold properties and slightly better volatility, but basically no "real" difference. Notice they did not say "No difference at all", just "no real difference", meaning both are excellent. If u use a synth, they warranty it for 300k, because you have paid more money for the oil, so u get a better insurance policy.
Originally Posted By: Captain_Klink
... If u use a synth, they warranty it for 300k, because you have paid more money for the oil, so u get a better insurance policy.
Finally someone that gets it!
... If u use a synth, they warranty it for 300k, because you have paid more money for the oil, so u get a better insurance policy.
Finally someone that gets it!
Originally Posted By: Captain_Klink
they're just telling us what we already know. "Conventional" nowadays is far better than 15 years ago, and is hydroprocessed group 2. synthetic is just more highly processed, but still basically does the same job, has slightly better cold properties and slightly better volatility, but basically no "real" difference.
I agree with you.
What struck me was their willingness to state it clearly. You'd think it a conflict of interest to be so honest with the public.
Conventional and Group III get closer all the time it seems.
they're just telling us what we already know. "Conventional" nowadays is far better than 15 years ago, and is hydroprocessed group 2. synthetic is just more highly processed, but still basically does the same job, has slightly better cold properties and slightly better volatility, but basically no "real" difference.
I agree with you.
What struck me was their willingness to state it clearly. You'd think it a conflict of interest to be so honest with the public.
Conventional and Group III get closer all the time it seems.
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: tig1
Drew99GT said:Which API Spec. test did did M1 fail?
Seq. IVA. Didn't you hear?
According to information posted by someone else in other threads, the API does not know why Valvoline said those things about Mobil 1, and the API said that Mobil 1 meets all API specifications and certifications. The API also said that after the Valvoline flap, Mobil 1 demonstrated to the API that their 5W-30 meets all API specs. The name of guy at API who said these things was quoted in the posts on this forum (I don't have links handy).
The only claim that I have seen about Mobil 1 failing the Seq. IVA test was in a letter from Valvoline. There were no detailed test results documented in the letter, nor any independent confirmation about the results of the test(s), how many tests were conducted, how many failed, how many passed, etc. Considering that the Seq. IVA involved engine tear down (apparently the same engine each time of a "1994 Nissan KA24E, 2.4-liter, water-cooled, fuel-injected engine, 4-cylinder in-line, overhead camshaft with 2 intake valves, and 1 exhaust valve per cylinder) it appears to me that a single test could be skewed if the previous engine rebuild was not done correctly.
As noted, ExxonMobil strenuously denied that any of their oils fails to meet specifications.
Originally Posted By: Mark888
The only claim that I have seen about Mobil 1 failing the Seq. IVA test was in a letter from Valvoline.
What is Castrol's basis for their 8x better claims?
It's hard to believe that Castrol would go out on a limb based on nothing but Valvoline's independently verified sequence IVA results.
The only claim that I have seen about Mobil 1 failing the Seq. IVA test was in a letter from Valvoline.
What is Castrol's basis for their 8x better claims?
It's hard to believe that Castrol would go out on a limb based on nothing but Valvoline's independently verified sequence IVA results.
Sure they would... They got everyone at XOM scared about being whipped with a Dipstick. It hurts you know!
Check it out:
http://www.castroledgeusa.com/#/why-upgrade/test
http://www.castroledgeusa.com/#/why-upgrade/results
I have a really hard time believing Castrol is using the results of Valvoline's independent test here.
The dipstick hurts pretty bad, but probably not as bad as public humiliation and a big fat lawsuit.
http://www.castroledgeusa.com/#/why-upgrade/test
http://www.castroledgeusa.com/#/why-upgrade/results
I have a really hard time believing Castrol is using the results of Valvoline's independent test here.
The dipstick hurts pretty bad, but probably not as bad as public humiliation and a big fat lawsuit.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
I'm a great proponent, much I must attribute to Doug Hillary, of The 5w40 TDT/D1 oils as well as the 0w40. I've used all with good results.
Get Doug to elaborate on how and why of syn oils. Most impressive!!!
I'm a great proponent, much I must attribute to Doug Hillary, of The 5w40 TDT/D1 oils as well as the 0w40. I've used all with good results.
Get Doug to elaborate on how and why of syn oils. Most impressive!!!
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
What is Castrol's basis for their 8x better claims?
According to this, Valvoline claims its own synthetic is only 1.1 X better than its conventional.
What is Castrol's basis for their 8x better claims?
According to this, Valvoline claims its own synthetic is only 1.1 X better than its conventional.
Originally Posted By: Art_Vandelay
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
What is Castrol's basis for their 8x better claims?
According to this, Valvoline claims its own synthetic is only 1.1 X better than its conventional.
Not too far fetched of an idea, given the quality of today's conventional oil. I can just see all the BITOG discussions moving to conventional over synthetic and people returning their syn stashes to Walmart to get Valvoline Premium Conventional. White Bottle will be King--wait....It already is!
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
What is Castrol's basis for their 8x better claims?
According to this, Valvoline claims its own synthetic is only 1.1 X better than its conventional.
Not too far fetched of an idea, given the quality of today's conventional oil. I can just see all the BITOG discussions moving to conventional over synthetic and people returning their syn stashes to Walmart to get Valvoline Premium Conventional. White Bottle will be King--wait....It already is!
- Status
