VOA German Castrol 0W-30

[elwaylite]

This is from a new batch M040236A purchased last week.First number is new batch, 2nd is Patmans from 9-2003, enjoy.

Aluminum_0--1.7
Chromium_0--0.1
Iron_2--3.4
Copper_0--0.4
Lead_0--0.5
Tin_0--0
Moly_0--0.1
Nickel_0--0
Manganese_0--0.8
Silver_0--3.4
Titanium_0--0.1
Potassium_2--0
Boron_0--5.2
Silicon_5--7.8
Sodium_1--0
Calcium_3415--3544
Magnesium_110--144
Phosphorous_784--896
Zinc_972--1116
Barium_0--0.1

Vis_66.1--67.6
Flash_425
0 on insolubles and fuel

 

[ekpolk]

Thank you for doing this test. These numbers give me even greater confidence in the used oil analysis results I posted on my Camry last week.

 

[benjamming]

What lab? Do you have a TBN?

 

[elwaylite]

Blackstone, no tbn. From what Ive read and comments on here, I just really see the extra $10 a waste.

 

[Patman]

Thanks for doing this! It looks like the oil is indeed still the same formula, but is now cleaner, with less contamination in it than before. Very cool. I've just started spotting bottles with the batch number beginning with MO409 up here now.

 

[elwaylite]

No problem, yeah thats what i noticed also, seems a good bit cleaner which is a good thing

 

[dropitby]

With less CALC. MAGN. & ZINC it is still as good.

 

[cweed]

dropitby: Patman uses a different lab so maybe the different testing procedures account for slightly different numbers, the boron sticks out the most imho, but it still looks same and much cleaner, very happy about this

i got 10 qts of mo33 darn!

 

[Patman]

Yep, different labs will read differently, so since the numbers are pretty close, I don't see it as being a reduction in additives, just a variation in testing methods.

 

[Motorbike]

I see the difference as being just right under the new API SM phos cap .

Later if not already on the label at this time the formula is there to meet SM , only a label with wording change is needed .

 

[elwaylite]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Motorbike:
I see the difference as being just right under the new API SM phos cap .

Later if not already on the label at this time the formula is there to meet SM , only a label with wording change is needed .

---

that's what I was wondering also.

 

[novadude]

If this was Valvoline or Quaker state dino, it would be getting bashed by 90% of the people on this board for having a weak add pack.

For an oil that looks mediocre on paper, it sure seems to do a good job in engines.

 

[buster]

quote:

---

If this was Valvoline or Quaker state dino, it would be getting bashed by 90% of the people on this board for having a weak add pack.

For an oil that looks mediocre on paper, it sure seems to do a good job in engines.

---

Not necessarily. We've come to realize that VOAs are not that important. used oil analysis tell the story and GC has peformed exceptionally well and consistantly well. If it were turning in mediocre results, I think you'd see more criticism here but again, look at Motorcraft, Amsoil and others. They look weak on paper but contain more then what is shown through a cheap spectrographic analysis.

 

[ToyotaNSaturn]

quote:

---

Originally posted by novadude:
If this was Valvoline or Quaker state dino, it would be getting bashed by 90% of the people on this board for having a weak add pack..

---

I disagree. As a sometimes described "Valvo basher", there's no way I would frown upon an add pack with this much Calcium.

 

[elwaylite]

Yeah, valvo gets bashed on (from what ive seen) is the low values ine very category for the detergents/lubricants. Some of the VOA's ive seen of vavlo on here look terrible. But I also agree that the UOA is where the proof is at. I just think its smart to run a VOA every now and then to make sure the oil is still what it used to be.