Valvoline's Testing Capability

Again let me be clear, I like Valvoline. If I wasn't using M1 I'd likely being using it. It's a great oil and I do like that as a company they can run all the testing in-house. Top notch lab no doubt.

Here is another recent UOA that shows a TBN of 1.9. The oil did its job but I have noticed one thing about Valvoline and that is the TBN gets quite low.

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...sse-3-6l-8-6k-oci-valvoline-maxlife-5w30
 
Wonder if that was Valvoline maxlife synthetic blend or the full synthetic???

That could be a notable differentiation that needs to be made here...

If I am not mistaken Valvoline Maxlife full synthetic has more calcium and boron than that sample shows...


Ok latest PQIA testing Valvoline Maxlife full synthetic.. performed very recently...

1,180 ppm of calcium

800 ppm of magnesium

279 ppm of boron

68 ppm of molybdenum

33 ppm of titanium

And starting TBN of 9.12 per ASTM 2896...


I'd bet dollars to donuts that sample was the synthetic blend of VML...

Way too big a difference in boron for it to be the same thing. And other samples of VML advanced full synthetic always have more than the amount of calcium shown in that UOA.
 
Last edited:
Not trying to give you a hard time here buster... Not at all my intention.

Just pointing out that in this circumstance that UOA is very likely not the latest version of VML full synthetic. And I do think the latest version of VML full synthetic is looking like a much stronger oil than what their previous full synthetic was.

And I took your opening post has a positive about Valvoline not a negative.

I do agree with you that in pasts UOAs Valvoline full synthetic did not always maintain tbn all that well over a longer run...

I wonder now with the higher magnesium and much higher boron that circumstance may well have a better/different outcome??

Time and UOAs with the new version of VML full synthetic will tell that story.
 
Last edited:
Good points bbhero. I'd like to see the newer version as well. You're allowed to give me a hard time LOL
lol.gif
cheers3.gif
 
Originally Posted by bbhero
Not trying to give you a hard time here buster... Not at all my intention.

Just pointing out that in this circumstance that UOA is very likely not the latest version of VML full synthetic. And I do think the latest version of VML full synthetic is looking like a much stronger oil than what their previous full synthetic was.

And I took your opening post has a positive about Valvoline not a negative.

I do agree with you that in pasts UOAs Valvoline full synthetic did not always maintain tbn all that well over a longer run...

I wonder now with the higher magnesium and much higher boron that circumstance may well have a better/different outcome??

Time and UOAs with the new version of VML full synthetic will tell that story.



Good info captain, may run the 5w20 syn maxlife next
 
Originally Posted by bbhero
Wonder if that was Valvoline maxlife synthetic blend or the full synthetic???

That could be a notable differentiation that needs to be made here...

If I am not mistaken Valvoline Maxlife full synthetic has more calcium and boron than that sample shows...


Ok latest PQIA testing Valvoline Maxlife full synthetic.. performed very recently...

1,180 ppm of calcium

800 ppm of magnesium

279 ppm of boron

68 ppm of molybdenum

33 ppm of titanium

And starting TBN of 9.12 per ASTM 2896...


I'd bet dollars to donuts that sample was the synthetic blend of VML...

Way too big a difference in boron for it to be the same thing. And other samples of VML advanced full synthetic always have more than the amount of calcium shown in that UOA.


That is my UOA. It is the full synthetic version. I will edit the post to clarify. Purchased it from Walmart in feb
 
I laugh inside every time I read people trying to pick oils based on UOAs. While engine families may have some semblance of similarity, elemental analysis is not a valid way to evaluate engines' wear. All you really "should" glean from a UOA to make your decision on oil run length:

1. Is Fe under 150ppm?
2. Is viscosity still in grade?
3. Is TBN greater than 1?
4. Are insolubles under 0.5%?
5. Is fuel dilution less than 5%?

If these 5 criteria are affirmative, you can pretty well bet there would be no statistical differences in actual measured wear across any oil that met those criteria at that given mileage. There are too many differences in add packs and possibility of chemical chelation when changing brands to try to split a couple PPM on a single snapshot of oil condition. Example: Mobil1 "shows" higher iron than some, yet Mobil is sticking their name on the longest approved interval. tig1 has nearly half a million miles on M1 with no failures.

To put it simply, UOA is not a tool to evaluate how well an oil protects against physical wear; it's not the right tool for that job. UOA is useful to determine if the selected oil survived the given usage, mileage, and time in the given engine according to the 5 criteria above. UOA trends "may" identify a looming issue but rarely foreshadow something catastrophic.
 
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
To put it simply, UOA is not a tool to evaluate how well an oil protects against physical wear; it's not the right tool for that job. UOA is useful to determine if the selected oil survived the given usage, mileage, and time in the given engine according to the 5 criteria above. UOA trends "may" identify a looming issue but rarely foreshadow something catastrophic.

You mean like an accident that totals your car and torpedoes all your hard (maintenance) work?...‚

And agreed. Its only a tool to tell me if that's the right oil at the right oci for my engine and driving habits. My experience with an oil could be entirely different from someone else.
 
Last edited:
Agreed. It's an inexpensive tool. Extreme tests in rigs, engines and vehicle simulations along with engines tear downs that are inspected by digital microscopes are used to inspect part surfaces for wear.
 
Strange.... Doesn't totally match any of the recent testing done by PQIA... In terms of certain elements.. and those elements have remarkably similar in the past year plus when tested by the PQIA.
 
Originally Posted by buster
Valvoline has one of the best engine labs among all the oil brands. They are capable of running all 5 API engine tests in-house. Valvoline remains a brand that suggests you follow your owners manual for oil drain intervals. I can't say I blame them, but I'd like to see them put out a premium, top tier oil that is on the level of Mobil 1/Amsoil/Edge EP. Their "Modern Synthetic" was poorly marketed and just doesn't add up. The price is high for a product that has no explanation of why it's better than competing brands for intake valve deposits. I would even argue Mobil 1 was way ahead of them on that as their Noack is better and the SA levels are .8. Valvoline is a quality oil though and I'd use it in a heartbeat. The Noack volatility of the regular Valvoline FS 5w20, 5w30 and 10w30 are quite impressive at 7.6%, 9.3% and 8.0%. Not bad....

I've had a good experience at their VIOC as well during the few times I had to go there for my gf's car.

Link

"While most other lubricant companies outsource test capabilities, Valvoline keeps research in-house, providing consumers with an added level of assurance, setting us apart from our competitors and providing consumers with an unparalleled level of product security."


Originally Posted by buster
Valvoline has one of the best engine labs among all the oil brands. They are capable of running all 5 API engine tests in-house. Valvoline remains a brand that suggests you follow your owners manual for oil drain intervals. I can't say I blame them, but I'd like to see them put out a premium, top tier oil that is on the level of Mobil 1/Amsoil/Edge EP. Their "Modern Synthetic" was poorly marketed and just doesn't add up. The price is high for a product that has no explanation of why it's better than competing brands for intake valve deposits. I would even argue Mobil 1 was way ahead of them on that as their Noack is better and the SA levels are .8. Valvoline is a quality oil though and I'd use it in a heartbeat. The Noack volatility of the regular Valvoline FS 5w20, 5w30 and 10w30 are quite impressive at 7.6%, 9.3% and 8.0%. Not bad....

I've had a good experience at their VIOC as well during the few times I had to go there for my gf's car.

Link

"While most other lubricant companies outsource test capabilities, Valvoline keeps research in-house, providing consumers with an added level of assurance, setting us apart from our competitors and providing consumers with an unparalleled level of product security."


Amsoil is not even a major player and apparently their test facilities are second to none. They make good use of these test cells by pushing the envelope. Valvoline not so much. It's easy to play it safe but it doesn't lead to any progress one way or another. In other words they seem to be content to sit on the fence.
 
Last edited:
The ONLY reason...and I mean the ONLY reason Valvoline synthetic is not in my stash with Shell synthetics is its consistently $3 to $6 more off the shelf at Walmart. Its often the same price as Mobil 1 EP but with that I know I'm getting a little bit of exotica in the formulation. I have run Valvoline and think its an excellent oil but Walmart has priced it out of consideration. When QSUD is under $18, PP is $20, Gas a Truck $21, Castrol $22 M1 and M1 AFE $22 they have to give me valid reason to pay $25 for it.
 
As stanlee has said, I can get Castrol and Pennzoil at WM that is on the Bevo list for my cars, but not Valvolene at such a low price. I don't see return on investment being worth the extra money for Valvoline. Especially since occasionally I get like Fuchs, Liqui-moly, Motul, Total/Elf, and Mobil on sale or closeout for less.
For a daily driver in a moderate climate brand X on Bevo is = to brand Y on Bevo. OCI with short Winter trips and rush hour traffic is more important than brand.
 
Advertising frequency or philosophy means nothing to me, other than if they get too outrageous with their claims I see them as liars which automatically means their product is probably garbage.

The original post read to me as a criticism of Valvoline, not an endorsement. To that I say, just because some oil claims more than Valvoline, doesn't mean it's better or is even any better suited for that claim than Valvoline.

And no I don't particularly favor Valvoline although it is the quietest oil in my vehicles.

Goodness, this is like some sort of marketing/psychology experiment. :rolleyes:
 
Got that right ^^^^^^^^^

I have 3 old Valvoline 5 qt containers that have that glug free design and use them to take and recycle oil.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Superbuick96
2023 tally of the "Post your latest oil change" thread
2 3 4
Replies
71
Views
4K
ATex7239
J
Oil (re)selection for GDI
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
burbguy82
M
Which oil for breaking in 2024 F250 7.3?
3 4 5
Replies
80
Views
3K
Randy_R
buster
Mobil 1 & Chevrolet Performance
Replies
11
Views
1K
tnt_motorsports
E
Which HM oil for swelling rubber seals?
Replies
17
Views
2K
hrv
Back
Top