Valvoline Synpower 5W-30

[Nate1979]

Originally Posted By: bustednutz
PQIA has pretty much settled all of this in the past. Just look up their oils tested on their website and all the info you'll need is right there.
I've always liked Valvoline products. NAPA brand is just rebranded Valvoline that has a very good spec sheet. Its what I've been using for years now. Always a good price and usually their synthetic can be picked up on sale often.


How does the PQIA test data help in comparing two oil's performance? It doesn't. They test the amount of additives (but not even the form of the additives and only metallic), and some very basic performance information to check against published spec sheets. All of the other component of an oil including non metallic additives along with real performance information under actual test conditions are not in the PQIA scope. People are just guessing if they are using this data to compare two oils.

 

[tony1679]

Originally Posted By: SilverC6
Originally Posted By: tony1679


Again, nobody said ST was bad. But nobody has proven it's superior to VSP. The OP asked how VSP stacked up with others. So until somebody posts some U/Voas comparing VSP to others, any comments are basically

Does that include your posts???


Read people! The OP asked for opinions of VSP. I gave my opinion. He also asked how it compares with others. Since I don't know enough facts about other oils by memory, I did not compare any. This prevents me from being called a liar. When others criticize and suggest an obviously inferior oil, I demanded facts. This allows the OP to get an informed answer, not a "brand war-based" answer...

I fail to see why I am being criticized.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: tony1679
The OP asked how VSP stacked up with others. So until somebody posts some U/Voas comparing VSP to others, any comments are basically

Someone already pointed out that VOAs aren't terribly useful in comparing one oil to another, except in the very broadest sense, as in a high TBN oil might be better for long drains than something with a TBN much, much lower. The same, of course, applies to used oil analysis. You cannot measure the performance of an oil by used oil analysis, except in a similarly extremely broad sense.

I cannot even conceive of UOA numbers that would convince me that any oil is "better" than any other, unless the numbers were bleedingly obvious, such as TBN depletion in 3,000 miles in one, while the other is good for triple that, or one shearing ridiculously out of grade consistently in one application, while its competitor does better in the exact same vehicle. Even that would require trending.

 

[tony1679]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Someone already pointed out that VOAs aren't terribly useful in comparing one oil to another, except in the very broadest sense, as in a high TBN oil might be better for long drains than something with a TBN much, much lower. The same, of course, applies to used oil analysis. You cannot measure the performance of an oil by used oil analysis, except in a similarly extremely broad sense.

I cannot even conceive of UOA numbers that would convince me that any oil is "better" than any other, unless the numbers were bleedingly obvious, such as TBN depletion in 3,000 miles in one, while the other is good for triple that, or one shearing ridiculously out of grade consistently in one application, while its competitor does better in the exact same vehicle. Even that would require trending.


I do agree with this. But this leads to an honest non-sarcastic question. How do you prove one oil is better than another? I thought this was the purpose of a voa/uoa. These are the only tools I'm aware of that are available to people like us. Perhaps I am missing something?

 

[Garak]

You cannot really prove that one oil is better than another, since "better" is a bit of a loaded word. First off, VOAs are good at establishing the baseline numbers of a lube prior to using trended analysis, which is predicated upon using the same lubricant every time. Jumping from lube to lube and running used oil analysis doesn't get much done, other than providing some entertainment and some confirmation that the OCI was or wasn't totally ridiculous (in either direction).

If "better" means less wear, then you have your work cut out for you, since that can only be done by tear downs and measurements, and it takes a lot of work, time, and money to test many oils on many engines of the same family. If "better" means cheaper, read the price tag. If "better" means providing better fuel economy, look for a lower HTHS (and maybe higher VI) within the specified grade. If "better" means a boatload of certifications, read the label. If "better" means more suited to longer drains, find an oil that is at least as marketed as such, and then you'll find some value in conducting oil analyses.

Besides, choose any one of those metrics, you'll have problems, even if you did hypothetically have unlimited research abilities. Prices change. Formulations change. What works well in one engine isn't guaranteed to work well in every other engine. I would have no problem using Valvoline SynPower 5w30 in my G37. In fact, it exceeds the specifications which call for SM/GF-4 or higher and is of the approved viscosity, 5w30. Delvac 1 is also fine in my G, albeit unapproved. Conversely, Delvac 1 exceeds the requirements of a modern Cummins (and has the builder approvals). Valvoline SynPower 5w30 wouldn't be approved, and I sure as heck wouldn't try it in a Cummins. That doesn't make Delvac 1 automatically better than VSP. Delvac 1 is certainly better in the diesel engine than VSP. Delvac 1 works in my G, but isn't approved, whereas Valvoline SynPower 5w30 is. That doesn't make VSP better, either.

When I had Chevy small blocks go hundreds of thousands of kilometers with 1980s era conventional oils at 6,000 mile OCIs, I'd have no concerns with using any modern, reputable, certified oil (or modern, reputable, uncertified oil) these days.

 

[tony1679]

I must admit Garak, well said. But strictly speaking of the oil, not outside factors such as price and fuel economy, you should get a pretty good idea from a voa/uoa. The uoa will show TBN for length of service, metals for a general idea of engine wear, and many other factors. All things considered, I feel this is the best way for average consumers to compare results and decide what is best for their application. Once a couple of choices are picked, then price, economy, and the other factors come into play.

But when comparing apples to apples (same engine, grade, filter, etc.), voa/uoa data provides enough info to compare oils.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: tony1679
I must admit Garak, well said. But strictly speaking of the oil, not outside factors such as price and fuel economy, you should get a pretty good idea from a voa/uoa. The uoa will show TBN for length of service, metals for a general idea of engine wear, and many other factors. All things considered, I feel this is the best way for average consumers to compare results and decide what is best for their application. Once a couple of choices are picked, then price, economy, and the other factors come into play.

But when comparing apples to apples (same engine, grade, filter, etc.), voa/uoa data provides enough info to compare oils.


All you glean about metals is from a VERY narrow window of particle sizes that cannot reliably be translated into actual wear. What you can see sometimes is insight into an impending failure due to a significant spike in a particular wear metal or metals but 10ppm of Fe from oil A vs 15ppm from oil B doesn't mean that oil B is allowing more wear to occur, all it means is that, in parts per million, that particular sample had 5 more detected in the range the machine can test than the other.

What used oil analysis are useful for is checking for potential dirt ingestion (spikes in silicon), coolant contamination, TBN depletion/TAN elevation for determining OCI length....etc. They were not designed for, not are they intended to be used for comparing different oils to each other and going down that path is nothing more than an exercise in futility. The only way to measure wear is with a tear-down. And the fact that the VAST majority of used oil analysis done by members of this board do not contain particle counts, means that the wear metal data is even less useful.

There's a nice article on the main page of the site written by Doug Hillary who did actual fleet testing for major oil companies and OEMs and performed thousands upon thousands of used oil analysis during that time and also did random tear-downs.

Link here:

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis/

Give it a read please

 

[kschachn]

True. I used to run atomic absorption spectrograph samples of oils for my school's hydraulic power lab. Back then the largest particle that could be detected was something like 10 microns. Anything larger acted like bulk metal and although might be detected, would skew the analysis results.

Most of what you detect with AA is what would be termed "dissolved" metals, not particles as such.

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
All you glean about metals is from a VERY narrow window of particle sizes that cannot reliably be translated into actual wear. What you can see sometimes is insight into an impending failure due to a significant spike in a particular wear metal or metals but 10ppm of Fe from oil A vs 15ppm from oil B doesn't mean that oil B is allowing more wear to occur, all it means is that, in parts per million, that particular sample had 5 more detected in the range the machine can test than the other.

 

[SilverC6]

Originally Posted By: tony1679
I must admit Garak, well said. But strictly speaking of the oil, not outside factors such as price and fuel economy, you should get a pretty good idea from a voa/uoa. The uoa will show TBN for length of service, metals for a general idea of engine wear, and many other factors. All things considered, I feel this is the best way for average consumers to compare results and decide what is best for their application. Once a couple of choices are picked, then price, economy, and the other factors come into play.

But when comparing apples to apples (same engine, grade, filter, etc.), voa/uoa data provides enough info to compare oils.


If you are reaching for the best oil, neither Valvoline Synpower or Super Tech (Warren) Synthetic would be in your hand.

So price is certainly a factor in the discussion.

With the two second-tier synthetic oils that you are discussing, the Super Tech remains the least expensive alternate and, therefore, the best choice.

However, the NAPA synthetic sale last month was the best way to score some private labeled Synpower.

Now that's a serviceable synthetic at a dino price.

 

[05LGTLtd]

Originally Posted By: SilverC6
...


With the two second-tier synthetic oils that you are discussing...





Please elaborate on this "second-tier" comment. Are you saying SynPower is an inferior product, and if so inferior to what?

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: tony1679
I must admit Garak, well said. But strictly speaking of the oil, not outside factors such as price and fuel economy, you should get a pretty good idea from a voa/uoa. The uoa will show TBN for length of service, metals for a general idea of engine wear, and many other factors.

Be very, very, very cautious with the metals. Length of service is a little easier to glean. But, for the metal numbers, trended analysis is helpful, and the real value is at condemnation limits (which don't speak to wear, they speak to lubricant condition) or when you have something like lead spike up sharply more than once (i.e. it's not an outlier).

You're not going to find a certain number of PPM of iron corresponding to a certain number of microns of wear. It just won't work. If I'm looking through used oil analysis, I'm most interested in the viscosity, TBN, fuel dilution, along with spikes in lead and the like, or anything indicating coolant intrusion.

In an average motor vehicle UOA, you're never going to see metals like iron anywhere near condemnation levels, so worrying about or comparing those numbers borders on useless.

 

[SilverC6]

Originally Posted By: 05LGTLtd


Please elaborate on this "second-tier" comment. Are you saying SynPower is an inferior product, and if so inferior to what?


Second tier in comparison to market innovators like SOPUS and Exxon Mobil.

 

[Nate1979]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
True. I used to run atomic absorption spectrograph samples of oils for my school's hydraulic power lab. Back then the largest particle that could be detected was something like 10 microns. Anything larger acted like bulk metal and although might be detected, would skew the analysis results.

Most of what you detect with AA is what would be termed "dissolved" metals, not particles as such.

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
All you glean about metals is from a VERY narrow window of particle sizes that cannot reliably be translated into actual wear. What you can see sometimes is insight into an impending failure due to a significant spike in a particular wear metal or metals but 10ppm of Fe from oil A vs 15ppm from oil B doesn't mean that oil B is allowing more wear to occur, all it means is that, in parts per million, that particular sample had 5 more detected in the range the machine can test than the other.


Not only this but the oil is also filtered which means that a used oil analysis only gives limited amount of information of oil quality itself at one point in time but without measuring how much junk is in the oil filter you really don't know how much impurities have accumulated over time.

 

[novadude]

Originally Posted By: SilverC6
Originally Posted By: 05LGTLtd


Please elaborate on this "second-tier" comment. Are you saying SynPower is an inferior product, and if so inferior to what?


Second tier in comparison to market innovators like SOPUS and Exxon Mobil.


Why can't we consider Valvoline an "innovator"? After all, they were the first to bring a High Mileage oil to market, and SOPUS ExxonMobil jumped on that bandwagon. The additive package they are using in all these days (for better or worse) is much, much different from other oils on the market.

I'm not a big Valvoline fan. I just don't undertand why they would be considered "second tier"? Seems to me like they are on a level playing field with other "major" store brands.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: SilverC6
Second tier in comparison to market innovators like SOPUS and Exxon Mobil.

In fairness to VSP, it does meet ACEA A1/B1 A5/B5 in the correct grades. On the other hand, it doesn't exactly pole vault over the TBN minimums, unlike Mobil 1 or black bottle Castrol, much less their extended drain versions.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: novadude
Originally Posted By: SilverC6
Originally Posted By: 05LGTLtd


Please elaborate on this "second-tier" comment. Are you saying SynPower is an inferior product, and if so inferior to what?


Second tier in comparison to market innovators like SOPUS and Exxon Mobil.


Why can't we consider Valvoline an "innovator"? After all, they were the first to bring a High Mileage oil to market, and SOPUS ExxonMobil jumped on that bandwagon. The additive package they are using in all these days (for better or worse) is much, much different from other oils on the market.

I'm not a big Valvoline fan. I just don't undertand why they would be considered "second tier"? Seems to me like they are on a level playing field with other "major" store brands.


Well they would buy their additive package from Infineum (ExxonMobil/SOPUS), Lubrizol, Afton....etc. Just like they do when they source their base oils, which also would come from XOM, SOPUS, BP, CP....etc. Ashland is a blender, so they have to purchase their components so I can sort of see where SilverC6 is going with his comments.

And the entire idea of a "high mileage" oil is basically a novelty. Just because Ashland found a niche for it doesn't really make it any sort of innovation. They had some success with it so others followed suit. This is similar in some ways to how "back in the day" about the only synthetic oil you'd see on a store shelf was Mobil 1. Eventually the other brands saw the success Mobil was seeing with the Mobil 1 product and came out with Syntec, "Synpower"...etc.

Pennzoil still seems to be bouncing around trying to find the right "identity" for their synthetic products.

 

[wemay]

https://www.amsoil.com/lit/g3115.pdf

Again, it all depends what your looking for. No oil is great at everything. VSP is great, 'top tier', if you're under warranty (conservative oci) and drive a d.i. vehicle. This, according to AMSOIL'S testing where TEOST (deposit formation) is concerned.

 

[bustednutz]

If it is an SN rated oil just buy the prettiest bottle you like, at the price you're comfortable with. Case closed.

 

[wemay]

Originally Posted By: bustednutz
If it is an SN rated oil just buy the prettiest bottle you like, at the price you're comfortable with. Case closed.


Maybe the best advice, along with Caterham's, Garak's, and OVERKILL'S.

 

[ThirdeYe]

Originally Posted By: bustednutz
If it is an SN rated oil just buy the prettiest bottle you like, at the price you're comfortable with. Case closed.


I have to agree with this.