You’re not the only one. I found this place through watching his videos. He is highly intelligent, a genius in his own right. The patience and attention to detail he demonstrates are exemplary.
Valvoline Restore & Protect 5W30 OR Mobil 1 Euro FS 0W40?
- Thread starter MR 22
- Start date
Lakes Speed Jr. has a video where he tested Mobil 1 ESP X3 0W-40, and it was extremely shear stable, way more than FS 0W-40. I don't remember from the top of my head, but I saw a VOA of X4 0W-40, and it looks like a solid formulation that still uses POE.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Both oils would have similar, if not identical stay in grade requirements for their approvals (shear resistance).
The FS 0W-40 has a VI of 182
The X4 0W-40 has a VI of 201
This points to the X4 having considerably higher VII content.
X4 SDS shows 10-25% PAO:
FS SDS shows 25-50% PAO:
So, other than the shear observations in the LSJ video, we are 0 for 2 here with the X4 vs the FS. The FS has less VII and more PAO.
It absolutely has higher VII content. However, the X4 0W-40 has higher quality VII (or more shear-stable VII) compared to the FS 0W-40. The 15 min (I think it was 15 minutes) KRL on the FS 0W-40 turned it into a 0W-30, while the X3 0W-40 in Lake Speed Jr's video stayed in grade. The X4 0W-40 is the next evolution of the X3 0W-40.
The X4 0W-40 carries more stringent approvals, and is probably the the only mid saps lube that carries both Porsche C40 and A40.
Finally, the X4 0W-40 is blended with a much newer and more higher end additive package, VW 511. The FS 0W-40 is blended with the much older VW504.
Exxon spends more to make the ESP X4 0W-40 compared to the FS 0W-40.
The SDS isn't the entire recipe, if it's a recipe at all.
FWIW it's my opinion that the X4 0W-40 is a better oil than the FS 0W-40. However, the real-world difference for street use might not be, and it's probably not noticeable at all. Not in oil analysis results, probably not even in long term tests, unless the engines are run to the extreme. However, as someone who always likes to pick what I perceive is "best', or "the best I can afford", I pick the X4 0W-40.
I would agree ESP 0W30 may surprise in its cleaning ability . While not likely on par with R&P , I did notice on regular dip stick level checks up to 4K miles the oil color was darker sooner with first fill of ESP 0W30 . Now one vehicle (‘21 Seltos) is on its 2nd fill of ESP 0W30 which I will be checking to see how the dip stick oil color progresses during this 2nd ESP 0W30 fill.
I have a Subaru Forester that I maintain for a friend that has lived on 5k oci’s with some of the cheapest full synthetic available a Wally. Looking inside the oil fill I can see some varnish on the timing gears and around the chain area. I finally convinced him to switch over to ESP. I will be monitoring the clean up as I see the vehicle every 5k. Should be interesting as it also burns about 1.5 quarts every 5k. Not as bad as my Outback was but still annoying.
Last edited:
wemay
Site Donor 2023
Use VRP. It not only cleans spectacularly but shows excellent wear protection in UOAs.
Since you’ve already convinced yourself that VRP gives you equal or better protection as HPL and other C30 oils, based off of UOAs, means even if you were presented with factual data that your confirmation bias would not allow you to believe the data.
You’re attempting to use a hammer where a jeweler’s screwdriver is required by believing UOAs will give you representative wear numbers between competing oils. UOA isn’t the proper tool for that job.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
That was likely necessary (using the Star VII) in order to stay in grade due to the higher volume of VII polymer in the product.
The X4 is also slightly heavier out of the gate, albeit, not by a much. Again, both have to meet the stay in grade requirements for their approvals. For 229.5, that's 90 cycles in ASTM D7109, which is the same as for 229.51/52. If staying in grade in the KRL is important to you, then obviously the X4 is superior.
Yes, I think that's obvious based on the X3 -> X4 nomenclature change.
They both carry A40.
The X4 has: C40, 511 00, MB 229.51/229.52
The FS has MB 229.5/229.3, VW 502 00/505 00, BMW LL-01
Some of these prioritize different things. 229.51/229.52 caps TBN at 6 for example, but has more stringent oxidation resistance parameters. 229.5 has a higher load carrying capacity limit, and the only one with a limit using aged oil. 229.51/52 is tested in the OM651 and 642 but not the M272. 229.5 is tested in M271 and M272 but not OM651/642. 229.51/52 has higher piston cleanliness requirements on the OM 646 diesel engine (16 merits vs 14 for 229.5).
Would be helpful to have the current details on the LL-01 test procedures, as that of course adds another dimension, as well as VW 511 00.
For Mercedes, the 229.51/52 approvals prioritize diesel performance, while 229.5 prioritizes gas.
I think you mean 502 00/505 00? FS doesn't carry 504. I'm not sure how you are concluding the additive package is "more higher end" unless you have access to data we don't (the latest copy of the Afton handbook I have is 2019, so it doesn't have 511 00 in it). Also, the FS additive package isn't all that old, because it was recently updated to carry LL-01 again.
This is based on what, the higher cost of the Star VII? It can't be the PAO. Assuming this is an Infineum additive package, I'm genuinely curious as to what this is based on.
Nobody is claiming the SDS is a recipe. They do however show that both oils are based very similarly, both using GTL as the primary base, while the FS appears to lean a bit harder on PAO (and less VII), while the X4 likely leans a bit harder on a thinner GTL base and more VII (albeit, Star VII).
And that's fine, if it's just your opinion, that's why I asked.
And that's why I'm running the HPL Super Car (which is formulated using the A40/LL-01/229.5 full-SAPS additive package, the horror!
)Nothing on the road spends most of its life at 7,000 RPM. In fact, most of the time, most engines are between idle and 3,500 RPM. Not really sure that your discussion of the hydraulic wedge characteristics is accurate. You are conflating hydraulic wedge characteristics with the weight of the oil and making the point that higher viscosities might provide better function at very high RPM. Then you are suggesting that higher viscosity oils won't function properly at lower operating temperatures because "a lot of the oil doesn't make it through the bearings." This might seem true, but the fact of the matter is that any oil between 0W8 and 20W50 will flow through the bearings of any internal combustion vehicle on the road without ill-effect.
I mean VW502, not 504. I mixed them up, sorry. Can you share some more info about the testing procedures for each approval?That was likely necessary (using the Star VII) in order to stay in grade due to the higher volume of VII polymer in the product.
The X4 is also slightly heavier out of the gate, albeit, not by a much. Again, both have to meet the stay in grade requirements for their approvals. For 229.5, that's 90 cycles in ASTM D7109, which is the same as for 229.51/52. If staying in grade in the KRL is important to you, then obviously the X4 is superior.
Yes, I think that's obvious based on the X3 -> X4 nomenclature change.
They both carry A40.
The X4 has: C40, 511 00, MB 229.51/229.52
The FS has MB 229.5/229.3, VW 502 00/505 00, BMW LL-01
Some of these prioritize different things. 229.51/229.52 caps TBN at 6 for example, but has more stringent oxidation resistance parameters. 229.5 has a higher load carrying capacity limit, and the only one with a limit using aged oil. 229.51/52 is tested in the OM651 and 642 but not the M272. 229.5 is tested in M271 and M272 but not OM651/642. 229.51/52 has higher piston cleanliness requirements on the OM 646 diesel engine (16 merits vs 14 for 229.5).
Would be helpful to have the current details on the LL-01 test procedures, as that of course adds another dimension, as well as VW 511 00.
For Mercedes, the 229.51/52 approvals prioritize diesel performance, while 229.5 prioritizes gas.
I think you mean 502 00/505 00? FS doesn't carry 504. I'm not sure how you are concluding the additive package is "more higher end" unless you have access to data we don't (the latest copy of the Afton handbook I have is 2019, so it doesn't have 511 00 in it). Also, the FS additive package isn't all that old, because it was recently updated to carry LL-01 again.
This is based on what, the higher cost of the Star VII? It can't be the PAO. Assuming this is an Infineum additive package, I'm genuinely curious as to what this is based on.
Nobody is claiming the SDS is a recipe. They do however show that both oils are based very similarly, both using GTL as the primary base, while the FS appears to lean a bit harder on PAO (and less VII), while the X4 likely leans a bit harder on a thinner GTL base and more VII (albeit, Star VII).
And that's fine, if it's just your opinion, that's why I asked.
And that's why I'm running the HPL Super Car (which is formulated using the A40/LL-01/229.5 full-SAPS additive package, the horror!
I’m not sure if I misled you or if you’re just being presumptuous, but I have made no such conclusions. I get paid quite well to interpret engine test data for a living, and I’m good at my job. That includes knowing when data is inconclusive and apparent differences are just test noise.
What I have concluded: I am utterly convinced of VRP’s cleaning ability. This is beyond debate in my own experience and in the growing body of evidence that aligns with my experience. To be clear, I’m not saying that another oil won’t also clean. I’m saying VRP does.
The question I’m raising— and I’m still open about— is its wear protection. There is UOA showing excellent results with VRP in this regard. There’s not a ton of UOA in the collective data yet on VRP, but what has shown up so far is very good— under 1ppm/1k miles of iron and aluminum.
Now it might be that the heretofore excellent wear metal results are because VRP is being used mostly by people like me who have old engines with lots of miles that they want to clean up a bit. So perhaps the low wear metals are explained by the engines being so old and well-broken in on good oils. They are still in the slow-wear middle portion of the reliability bathtub curve.
Please indulge an analogy to another hobby of mine. When I develop match rifle ammunition, I’m looking more for inaccuracy than accuracy. I can shoot 20-30 consecutive hits and still not be certain that a load is “great” because each successful shot is just a marginal reduction in uncertainty. But I can know a load is not great in 2 shots. Group sizes never get smaller. And if the requirement is all impact holes to lie within a 1” circle, any load that goes outside that in a small sample is ruled out. If I can hammer 20 consecutive shots within a 1” circle, that’s only possible when shooter, rifle, load, and conditions are all doing their part.
Coming back to UOAs, then, it’s almost certainly more relevant to have no UOAs showing unimpressive or problematic results than it is to have any single UOAs showing superior results when the goal is superior results.
Which means we need to wait a bit to see how VRP fares and see if we don’t get some less-than-stellar results. At some point though we will have had ample opportunity for them to show up, and the absence of them is likely to be more dispositive than the presence of good results. Such is the nature of small samples.
I am running HPL oil and wondering what to run once VRP cleaning is mostly complete. I have an open mind, and in the case of HPL, an open wallet.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
No worries.
I get the information (that's at least available, LL-01 seems highly guarded unfortunately, but it's apparently a very robust spec, which is why so many 0W-40's lost it) primarily from the Afton Specification Handbook. Last version they appear to have made publicly available is 2019 unfortunately. Here's a link to it:
(note that is not my link, it's from Google, but appears to pull up the right document at first blush).
As an aside, but germane to our conversation, these were David's comments on M1 FS 0W-40:
High Performance Lubricants said:
High Performance Lubricants said:
Now, I have no idea if he has also tested the X4 0W-40, but I do take his opinion on the FS 0W-40 to the bank, as to it being a formidable product in this space.
Last edited:
Good Morning! I have yet to try VRP, but I have tried M1 Euro FS in the recent past.
What I wonder is, out of these two, which do you feel would be an overall better choice?
I'm curious because while I'm sure VRP is a great oil, it does not have all of the certifications that M1 Euro FS has. (MB 229.5, Porsche A40, etc.)
I want to be clear that I'm not throwing shade at either oil or brand, nor am I trying to start a motor oil feud.Just curious as to everyone's thoughts or preferences of these two oils.
Thanks in advance.
I can't really think of an application where both of the oils would be a candidate, unless you're straying pretty far from recommendations one way or the other. If the car calls for an oil that meets the specs M1 0w40 does, then VRP probably doesn't qualify. Going the other way, it could be argued that M1 0w40 might be overkill for a car calling for an oil like VRP, but that isn't necessarily good (for example, a DI engine and concerns over LSPI, though the newest M1 0w40 is probably less of a problem in that regard than the previous version).
David made those comments prior to the SP reformulation. I wonder if he still thinks that?
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
He made them in September of 2022, yeah, about a month before it was rated SP (and I don't know when he ran the test, nor do I know when the actual reformulation happened and started to show on shelves).
I'll text him and ask.
That would be great! I’ve been wondering the same thing.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
OK, I asked Dave. He said yes, he assumes it was the SN product, given the time period, but his opinion of it hasn't changed, as he doesn't have a reason to believe the performance has with the change to SP. But he has not re-tested the product, as there's been no reason to.
Thank you for the information and for the time you devoted to this. That specification handbook will keep me busy for a while. I will give it a good read.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
You are quite welcome!Thank you for the information and for the time you devoted to this. That specification handbook will keep me busy for a while. I will give it a good read.
