VOA tables for mid & full SAPS european oils

smile.gif
don't thank me, but rather the forum oil-club.ru and a user nicknamed Strelec on that forum who did all these tables.
 
Mobil 1 ESP also has the lowest amount of calcium. Calcium is also a source of sulphated ash. Redline euro and Mobil 1 ESP have the lowest noack numbers at about five for both.
 
Originally Posted By: volodymyr
Table 7 (0W-20, API SN ILSAC GF-5)

post-2-0-74563900-1465981531.gif




If I had to pick one oil from all of the above tables, it would be the Idemitsu Zeppo 0W20 (Number 4 in the above table).

It's the oil with the lowest KV40, it contains a tonne of Moly and has a reasonable Noack & TBN. It also has a very high Viscosity Index of 232 which normally I wouldn't be overly bothered about but in this instance, probably points to a very clever VII polymer being used to promote fuel economy (PMA maybe?).

I drive two notionally similar cars; a Kia Picanto and a Suzuki Celerio. Both use a 1.0L NA 3 cylinder engine, are of a similar size and are driven more or less identically. The Kia uses a Shell A3/B4 5W30 (not sure which because the dealer changes the the oil) and from new has averaged about 56 mpg (46.7 mpUSG). The Suzuki, I think, uses the Idemitsu 0W20. From new it's averaged 73.7 mpg (61.4 mpUSG). I do about 8,000 miles per year on unleaded which costs about £1.10/litre (roughly $US 5.40/ USG) so if, highly unscientifically, you attribute all of the fuel economy difference to the oil, then the 0W20 is 'worth' £170/year to me. Nice!
 
Last edited:
The hyundai/kia engines are notoriously unefficient, in my experience.

Size per size (both engines as cars) on the same oil, the mitsubishi's we also sell are more economical, up to 20% even. Mitsu paid more attention to weight reduction, that'll be part of the efficiency difference though.
 
Jetronic,

Originally Posted By: Jetronic
What does that line under the TBN mean?


translate.png
 
Last edited:
This is an outstanding resource I wonder if it could be moved or copied to the Virgin Oil Analysis forum where people looking for this information could find it as well?
 
Originally Posted By: volodymyr
Jetronic,

Originally Posted By: Jetronic
What does that line under the TBN mean?


translate.png



thank you!


Oh I found an error in one of the tables, but I know you can't change them. Maybe you know how to contact the maker though? I found the correct figures in the original VOA, btw.
 
Jetronic,

Originally Posted By: Jetronic
thank you!
Oh I found an error in one of the tables, but I know you can't change them. Maybe you know how to contact the maker though? I found the correct figures in the original VOA, btw.


Of course. Feel free to post here or write me in PM and I will relay your message in the russian forum.
 
post-2-0-19670500-1466411076.gif


#4: Elf Excellium Full-Tech 0w-30 hasillogical and unreasonable TAN and SAPS results, so I went looking for the original oil analysis results, and found them here:

post-2-0-05821500-1364804934.jpg


They have an extra result for TBN, which got mixed up for TAN, and the TAN result got mixe up with SAPS.

So, the TAN should be 2,74 in stead of 7,55
and the SAPS should be 0,92 in stead of 2,74.


I do wonder why they have 2 TBN results though (different test method apparently?)
 
The table suggests that Elf Excellium and the Yacco oil claim to be A3/B4 oils. If they met the latest incarnation of ACEA A3/B4, then they should have a TBN of at least 10 like most of the other oils. They don't.
To meet the older version of A3/B4 the oil would need to have a TBN of at least 8. My guess is they tested the Elf oil and got a TBN of 7.55, figured this must be wrong, retested and got a result of 8.45. Usually, in an attempt to be 'honest', you'll quote both results rather than dump the original 'wrong' result. Averaging the two results gives you 8 dead so this oil is only just on-grade vs the old version of A3/B4.
 
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
The table suggests that Elf Excellium and the Yacco oil claim to be A3/B4 oils. If they met the latest incarnation of ACEA A3/B4, then they should have a TBN of at least 10 like most of the other oils. They don't.
To meet the older version of A3/B4 the oil would need to have a TBN of at least 8. My guess is they tested the Elf oil and got a TBN of 7.55, figured this must be wrong, retested and got a result of 8.45. Usually, in an attempt to be 'honest', you'll quote both results rather than dump the original 'wrong' result. Averaging the two results gives you 8 dead so this oil is only just on-grade vs the old version of A3/B4.


I've found some more information on this: the first result is from a russian method not comparable to the correct ASTM procedure, the second result however is comparable.
 
Back
Top