4WD
$50 site donor 2025
As I said before - it’s a fully formulated SP with an extra potential …
I don’t plan to pull/cut a filter early (I did with 25% EC30) since both that and the 2nd filter were normal …
Valvoline Restore & Protect
- Thread starter Scott S
- Start date
I don’t plan to pull/cut a filter early (I did with 25% EC30) since both that and the 2nd filter were normal …
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
This will depend on many factors, like sump size, the presence of an oil cooler or coolant/oil heat exchanger...etc. My SRT and my wife's RAM hold oil temp very near coolant temp (heat exchangers) seemingly regardless of operating profile. My M5, which had a 7L sump and a massive oil cooler typically ran the oil around 90-98C, but in stop and go on the 401, it could get a fair bit higher. Applications with no cooler and tiny (3.5-4.0L sumps) are obviously more prone to massive swings in temperature and these are the applications I was alluding to. These are also the ones that, despite the existence of this test to limit the formation of piston deposits, still manage to accumulate them, stuck rings and oil consumption.
This is an area where we have to be a little bit careful, as back in the day AMSOIL used to be somewhat notorious for thickening out of grade on reasonably average runs (though they are much better in this regard in more recent years, likely due to more VII and increased use of Group III). The HPL 0W-20 in my wife's RAM 1500 thickened by 12% in just 6,200 miles, and that's with extremely well regulated oil temperatures as noted above. The HPL No VII 5W-30 thickened by 17% in 7,000 miles in a 4Runner and @wwillson's Durango (same application as IIIH amusingly) saw pretty much exactly your 50% increase in 33,000 miles (as did @DirectRejection with his 0W-8 in 30,000 miles), but I don't believe there are any grounds to conclude that in either of these latter instances, that the lubricant was degraded to the point to be producing piston deposits.
AMSOIL 0W-30 thickened by only 21% over 31,000 miles in comparison in a 2015 Tacoma, which is less than Direct Rejection saw in 19,500 miles (26%) with HPL.
As you know, generally, we see a "U" or "V" trend with your typical oil where there's some initial shear, reducing viscosity and then a curve back up as oxidation drives it back up, past the virgin KV, if the lube is run long enough. With oils with little to no VII (or very shear stable VII), you don't get that initial curve down, so the overall oxidation level may in fact be lower, but the impact on viscosity will appear greater, because that initial loss due to shear doesn't take place.
Well yes, the purpose of the test is to breakdown the oil and produce deposits. But AMSOIL was able to pass it at double the duration with 40% fewer deposits than the limit, and of course this bar is achievable (the test can be passed) by a generic dollar store syn blend. So I maintain the test isn't THAT severe, it can't be, otherwise those generic dollar store syn blends and their bulk oil siblings couldn't pass it, which would drive up the minimum price of lubes and impact the quick lube and bulk oil business. The API is setting the floor here, not the ceiling, and as @Astro14 has noted, and I remarked upon above, these oils, depending on the service profile, can still end up producing considerable deposits in certain applications with reasonable intervals, despite passing this test.
Slight tangent, but we can see how that plays out a bit in application in this old Mobil 1 0W-40 TFO test slide, which is designed to simulate piston deposit formation. Both the oil on the far left and the oil on the far right pass the test, but there's a rather major difference in performance between the two.
Here's Sequence IIIG for the same oils (predecessor to the current IIIH version). Ultron 5W-40 passes with margin, but we can see that the 0W-40 performs massively better, just like it did in the TFO test:
Great discussion BTW
Here’s my unscientific anecdotal addition to this thread. I ran 2500 mile OCIs on the RX 350 and Tundra just to see what would happen. Usually, the RX 350 turns almost everything black within that mileage interval while the Tundra still has some amber color and transparency to it. After 2500 miles they both came out the color they went in. Not sure what it means other than I don’t think much was liberated by this oil run and this was probably just a waste of time and money. Dip stick pic is oil from Tundra before the oil change and the filter pic is the used filter from the RX 350.
^^^ Anything caught down deep in the filter pleats? That's typically we're any debris ends up. Could be your engines are relatively clean, and anything that was cleaned ened up being microscopic debris you can't detect in the filter.
yest those are not ash deposits, they're hydrocarbon deposits
Not a hint of a hint of a hint of anything in either filter. I’ve been running Mobil 0W40 FS in the Tundra for the past 20K miles and various high quality oil in the RX 350 both at 5K OCIs so I wasn’t too worried there would be deposits. Besides, the Kia is what I worry more about but it too has had Mobil 0W40 it’s entire life at 5k miles OCIs up until this current OCI so again not to worried.
I would consider it a win, rather than a waste — other than you could have taken both out to 5k miles. At least you know the internals are clean and your routine works well for both.
What are those?
Sure, just anticlimactic, in a good way.
M1 0W-40 is one of the best non [boutique] oils on the market.
Triple_Se7en
$50 Site Donor 2024
If it's SP, (which most owners align with now in Owners Manuals)...... then I'd rather run with Mobil-1 Euro 0w40.
Besides, the heyday for Mobil-1 0w40 is now diminished, since PAO was swapped out.
For the 5k Fanatics here (which again are most).....
Give me SP, or give me SP for the Typical non-Euro passenger vehicle TGDIs / GDI engines.
No SL & No SN at my crib.
You forgot to post your mass spec images from a deposit sample.
Funny how oil with reduced organo-metallic additives produces less deposits.
What else was changed? base oil is different aswell, what about the viscosity index improvers? they are comparing 2 TOTALLY different products.
No, it's all fake news and giant hoax put forward by Valvoline's Marketing department. It doesn't work and should be called Valvoline Ruin and Destroy. That wasn't really Lake Speed at their Valvoline Lab. And the photos provided by Valvoline are CGI.
In fact, deposits on valves and intakes has improved with newer generation engines, but not with newer generation oils in my workshop experience. Same with diesel engines too.
Nobody on BITOG has reported an engine failure using it so I'd say yes it does work.
As for the Valvoline company, I'll speculate this version produces a nice increment of additional profit per gallon compared to their traditional product lines as the added cost is most likely less than the 5 dollar retail price bump.
Of course it may take some time to pay off the development costs and initial marketing expenses.
And for many, when their vehicle heads to the scrap yard due to rust, crash damage, blown transmission, or whatever, they'll have the satisfaction of knowing their engine was cleaner inside.
Good to know thanks. I think oils are very limited in what they can do to mitigate them.
I think there are a few things to consider - lower Noack, high solvency and strong base oil oxidation resistance. The oil that comes in contact with the valves has to be resistant to coking on to the valves. Oils with high solvency and strong oxidation resistance may help is my guess.
Similar threads
- Locked