Why doesn't Schaffers oil get more love?

[dnewton3]

You can run the cheapest oil out there for an oil change it, however unless you do a uoa you don’t know how the oil is doing. Many people say they run this without any issues and yet their wear rate has increased, varnish build up, or etc yet it “ran just fine” without any data lol.

For example. Both ran just fine. Yet wear rates was drastically different.

View attachment 265438

I'll apologize in advance, because this will come off harsh; not meant as a personal offense.
There exists some really flawed conclusions in your logic of this post.

- such a young engine should not be viewed as anything but exhibiting break-in; it is completely unacceptable to attribute any "wear rate" to a lube here. There is no ability to understand a wear-rate when the variables of machining remnants and use factors are completely uncontrolled and unknown. It is absurd to even talk about a "wear rate" during break-in. IMO running a UOA during break-in is a complete waste of money and mental effort.

- it is wrong to run a single sample of any lube and make conclusions about wear rates relative to another lube; the data is woefully lacking in magnitude sufficient enough to understand ranges and variability in regard to wear

- you cannot use small sample sets to properly determine how the wear is doing other than to compare/contrast to known (proven) averages, ranges and stdev's for the same lube in the same application

- singular UOAs can inform us how the lube properties held up (vis, FP, etc), and we can see undesirable things like contamination (fuel, soot, oxidation) ...

- singular UOAs can ONLY be used to compare/contrast against proven historical macro-data, statistically analyzed, when all the other inputs are identical or properly controlled



This just continues to prove that many folks here have ZERO understanding of the UOA as a tool; what it can and cannot tell us, the benefits and limitations, and how to properly use it.

 

[Patman]

- such a young engine should not be viewed as anything but exhibiting break-in; it is completely unacceptable to attribute any "wear rate" to a lube here. There is no ability to understand a wear-rate when the variables of machining remnants and use factors are completely uncontrolled and unknown. It is absurd to even talk about a "wear rate" during break-in. IMO running a UOA during break-in is a complete waste of money and mental effort.

I am going to have to disagree with you on that point. Doing UOAs during the break in period starts the trending analysis process and you should be able to see when the engine has broken in after you get a few UOAs in a row that show consistent wear numbers. I also had a lot of great information when I did the UOA on the factory fill and the next few changes with my Corvette. The factory fill showed 2% fuel (with Wearcheck, who uses GC so that number is not a guess like Blackstone) It also showed that because of the fuel in there that the factory fill was already a 5w20 even at only 1100 miles. My second UOA showed 1% fuel and the third showed me none, even after a 7400 mile OCI. So what I suspected is that when my car was built and then moved around many times during the building and shipping process, it must have had quite a few cold starts and then shutdowns where the engine was not running for very long. And because it’s direct injected that just allowed even more fuel in there.

So I guess the moral of my long story here is that no UOA is a waste of money, you can always learn something from it

 

[K-Man]

About the questions on dexos, etc., this is from the technical data sheet for Schaeffer's 9003D Supreme 9000 5W-30:

Supreme 9000 Full Synthetic SAE 5W-30 meets and exceeds the following specifications and
manufacturers’ requirements: MIL-PRF-46152E; CID A-A-52039B, API Service Classification SP,
Resource Conserving; ILSAC GF-6A; Ford WSS-M2C946-A; Ford WSS-M2C946-B1; Ford WSS-
M2C930-A; Ford WSS-M2C929-A; Ford WSS-M2C929-B1; Ford WSS-M2C961-A1; General Motors
dexos1™Gen3; General Motors 6094M; Chrysler MS-6395Q, MS-9214; Toyota and Honda Service Fill
Specifications, Honda/Acura HTO-06.

https://www.schaefferoil.com/documents/247-9003D-td.pdf

About the Euro applications, this is from the technical data sheet for Schaeffer's 8007 Advanced European Performance Full SAPS SAE 5W-30 (appears to be the only viscosity rating for this oil):

Advanced European Performance Full SAPS SAE 5W-30 meets and exceeds and is suitable for use for
following specifications: ACEA A3/B4-16; ACEA A3/B3-16; API Service Classification SL/CF; Volkswagen
502.00, 505.00; Mercedes Benz MB 229.3; MB 229.5; Renault RN0700, RN0710; Opel GM-LL-A/B-025,
BMW Long Life-01.

https://www.schaefferoil.com/documents/285-8007-td.pdf

SAPS = "sulfated ash, phosphorus and sulfur". There is a mid–SAPS Euro oil in 5W-30, Schaeffer 8008.

Here's the main page for engine oils: https://www.schaefferoil.com/engine-oils.html

And the main page for all products: https://www.schaefferoil.com/oil-lubrications-products.html

Posted all this after reviewing the thread because there seemed to be a lot of questions and relatively little hard checking to back up anything said or claimed. Hope this helps.

In the early days of this site 20 years ago there was a lot of praise for Schaeffer products. I use Amsoil and am very happy with its products, but if the chips were down, I wouldn't have any problem using Schaeffer. Did use the SoyUltra fuel additive a few years ago as an experiment and it seemed to work well.

 

[dnewton3]

I am going to have to disagree with you on that point. Doing UOAs during the break in period starts the trending analysis process and you should be able to see when the engine has broken in after you get a few UOAs in a row that show consistent wear numbers. I also had a lot of great information when I did the UOA on the factory fill and the next few changes with my Corvette. The factory fill showed 2% fuel (with Wearcheck, who uses GC so that number is not a guess like Blackstone) It also showed that because of the fuel in there that the factory fill was already a 5w20 even at only 1100 miles. My second UOA showed 1% fuel and the third showed me none, even after a 7400 mile OCI. So what I suspected is that when my car was built and then moved around many times during the building and shipping process, it must have had quite a few cold starts and then shutdowns where the engine was not running for very long. And because it’s direct injected that just allowed even more fuel in there.

So I guess the moral of my long story here is that no UOA is a waste of money, you can always learn something from it

Nothing wrong with disagreeing; I offer or take no offense.

I don't mind if one takes UOAs during break-in if they have the intention of curiously, or looking for contamination, etc. That's perfectly fine. If this is the goal, then the UOA is not a waste.

However, if you read my statement carefully (as applied to the post I had quoted), I was indicating that UOAs during break-in are absolutely useless in determining "wear rates" as they relate to any lube. It is a bad idea to include those early wear metal counts in the data set for statistical analysis; they are most certainly going to be outliers and will, unnaturally, affect the results. There's no way of truly knowing how much of the metals is true wear, versus residual materials from the machining processes; there will be X and Y percentage of each, with no ability to make a distinction between the two different origins of the particulate.

I stand by my statement; it is absurd to talk about wear rates during break-in. The data is completely untrustworthy because:
- there is no ability to discern true wear from residual material
- there is not nearly enough data (in terms of quantity of data) to establish any reasonable manner of understanding "normalized" wear behavior
In this sense, UOAs during break-in are a waste, and because I was initially responding to a post about taking UOAs and making lube judgements during break in, I'll adamantly defend this position.

 

[OVERKILL]

About the questions on dexos, etc., this is from the technical data sheet for Schaeffer's 9003D Supreme 9000 5W-30:

Supreme 9000 Full Synthetic SAE 5W-30 meets and exceeds the following specifications and
manufacturers’ requirements: MIL-PRF-46152E; CID A-A-52039B, API Service Classification SP,
Resource Conserving; ILSAC GF-6A; Ford WSS-M2C946-A; Ford WSS-M2C946-B1; Ford WSS-
M2C930-A; Ford WSS-M2C929-A; Ford WSS-M2C929-B1; Ford WSS-M2C961-A1; General Motors
dexos1™Gen3; General Motors 6094M; Chrysler MS-6395Q, MS-9214; Toyota and Honda Service Fill
Specifications, Honda/Acura HTO-06.

https://www.schaefferoil.com/documents/247-9003D-td.pdf

About the Euro applications, this is from the technical data sheet for Schaeffer's 8007 Advanced European Performance Full SAPS SAE 5W-30 (appears to be the only viscosity rating for this oil):

Advanced European Performance Full SAPS SAE 5W-30 meets and exceeds and is suitable for use for
following specifications: ACEA A3/B4-16; ACEA A3/B3-16; API Service Classification SL/CF; Volkswagen
502.00, 505.00; Mercedes Benz MB 229.3; MB 229.5; Renault RN0700, RN0710; Opel GM-LL-A/B-025,
BMW Long Life-01.

https://www.schaefferoil.com/documents/285-8007-td.pdf

SAPS = "sulfated ash, phosphorus and sulfur". There is a mid–SAPS Euro oil in 5W-30, Schaeffer 8008.

Here's the main page for engine oils: https://www.schaefferoil.com/engine-oils.html

And the main page for all products: https://www.schaefferoil.com/oil-lubrications-products.html

Posted all this after reviewing the thread because there seemed to be a lot of questions and relatively little hard checking to back up anything said or claimed. Hope this helps.

In the early days of this site 20 years ago there was a lot of praise for Schaeffer products. I use Amsoil and am very happy with its products, but if the chips were down, I wouldn't have any problem using Schaeffer. Did use the SoyUltra fuel additive a few years ago as an experiment and it seemed to work well.

Right, so none of those are formal approvals, just recommendations, which is fine, but I'm not sure that's providing any necessary additional context.

 

[wemay]

Well, I just responded to 4WD's post regarding customizing the Mobil 1 for racing applications so that backs up my previous remark about Mobil 1 on Walmart's shelves. The other thing that really bugs me, never mentioned here ever I believe is this Dexos 1 and Dexos D BS. Whoever devised at GM this Dexos gig should be given a HUGE bonus. It is a brilliant marketing ploy to confuse the uneducated to believe you have to only use a Dexos labelled oil bottle to safeguard your warranty. Both Schaeffer and Amsoil and I'm sure others refuse to pay GM to have their oils certified as being Dexos compliant. I have argued constantly with members on other forums who won't use a non certified Dexos oil out of fear that their engine won't be warranted should it go South. Not only does the Magnuson Moss act protect Joe Consumer but I have checked with 2 area dealers and GM corporate that warranty will be honored should a non certified oil is found out as long as it meets the Dexos specs. 1 dealer told me they've replaced engines with no oil showing on the dipstick. Ok, rant over.

You make it seem as if dexos isn't at least a step up from the latest API SP/ILSAC GF-6. And although you may be correct that other oils can be used since my owner's manual strongly recommends dexos1 Gen3 OR EQUIVALENT, who (as in 99% of the public not on bitog) wants to deal with the trouble of a drawn out battle with a dealership denying warranty because they see it as dexos....take it or leave it. There's nothing wrong with wanting to follow the owner's manual recommendation.

I strongly believe that if or when Schaffers does receive formal dexos approval, it will/would be marketed as a good thing.

 

[kschachn]

Right, so none of those are formal approvals, just recommendations, which is fine, but I'm not sure that's providing any necessary additional context.

That whole post is a good example of how people can be confused by things such as this.

 

[Jw95]

You can't use UOA's to compare wear rates between oils (within reason). The tool simply lacks the resolution (nor is the measurement direct, it can't discern between chemical chelation and physical wear) and it's blind to particle sizes above about 5 microns.

The tool's purpose is to determine and monitor the condition of the lubricant for suitability for continued use. Find out what's "normal" for a particular engine/oil combo and then trending to monitor for significant deviations from that.

There's an article on the main page by Doug Hillary that gets into this in detail. Worth a read if you haven't:
https://bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis/

The proper way of doing it is 5 oci consecutive changes and have a steady trend analysis. A uoa can show differences and which oil doing better and how long you can go. You can still see difference with 2 oci changes. The second is just to get all cross contamination out. This has come from lake speed jr himself so I definitely trust what he says over anyone here. Lake even did uoas on his daughter’s car during break in to get wear as low as possible. I’ve seen a sample as well during break in from 4 different oils the the 4th that had a lot higher miles you would think wear rates would be lower from breaking in more. They increased and had better results with the oil on the 3rd oci.

Definitely gonna have to agree to disagree on this one respectively.

 

[Glenda W.]

Even Blackstone says no single oil statistically shows less wear in their vast collection of UOA’s(even conventional vs synthetic). It’s just not the right tool for the job. It does have it’s place but comparing oils based on wear isn’t one of them.

Please don’t get me wrong as I enjoy Lakes vids on oil composition, especially at HPL’s lab. But some of his other stuff is hit or miss.

 

[Jw95]

Lake is a salesman plain and simple, in fact he’s VP of sales. Even Blackstone says no single oil statistically shows less wear in their vast collection of UOA’s. It’s just not the right tool for the job. It does have it’s place but comparing oils based on wear isn’t one of them.

Put an api sp off the shelf oil in a fat tappet engine and then put in an oil like amsoil z rod for instance designed for that application and I guarantee you will have significantly less wear in a uoa. Blackstone tests doesn’t even show fuel dilution accurately as well as other samples coming back wrong like driven ls 30 showing way lower ppm than oil analyzers, Polaris labs, and speediagnostix.

Also note lake isn’t just a salesman. He will guide you on the right path no matter what.

@RDY4WAR

 

[Glenda W.]

Put an api sp off the shelf oil in a fat tappet engine and then put in an oil like amsoil z rod for instance designed for that application and I guarantee you will have significantly less wear in a uoa. Blackstone tests doing even show oil dilution accurately as well as other samples coming back wrong like driven ls 30 showing way lower ppm than oil analyzers, Polaris labs, and speediagnostix.

Also note lake isn’t just a salesman. He will guide you on the right path no matter what.

@RDY4WAR

Are you sure? Not all catastrophic failures are caught or foreseen on a UOA. Many examples of that here. All depends on the particle size. Using the completely wrong oil is a poor example. Trying to compare z rod to vr1 would be better.

Again Lake has a wealth of knowledge, you’re right he’s not just a salesman I was harsh. But not everything he says is gospel. Use some critical thinking. I’ve caught several misstatements on oil filters for example.

 

[RDY4WAR]

I find it humorous when people make Lake out as "just a salesman." Tribology is his passion. I've known him for many years. He doesn't push any product on anyone that he knows isn't right for the application. He's not like a shady car salesman. His passion is lubrication. It's why he went to Total Seal because piston rings go through all 3 lubrication regimes each stroke. It's a tribological wet dream, and his degree in marketing allows him to take what he knows and translate that into something the general public can understand and be informed on. He does not make videos for the people of BITOG. There's 2 kinds of BITOGers; those who want to dive into chemistry, formulating, and physics with emphasis on brands who take those things seriously, and the other growing group who only care about the cheapest oil that meets bare minimum spec (regardless if actual testing shows it meets that spec or not) and bash everything else. Neither group are a target audience of Lake.

UOAs are not designed to show engine wear. They show the condition of the oil, not the condition of the engine. High wear metals in a UOA is usually pretty conclusive for excessive wear. In contrast though, if wear metals are low, it's not conclusive that there isn't excessive wear. For one, the ICP can only see elements <5 um in size. (because it's looking for additives, not wear metals) There's also wear metals that get caught by the filter and thus aren't in the oil sample sent to the lab. The same for magnets. Wear metals can attract to and get trapped in sludge as it forms which can make a UOA look deceivingly better than it actually is. While UOAs can be a tool for assessing possible wear, it's not conclusive. Lake states this too in his videos which is why he does ring on liner tests with profilometer scans.

 

[Glenda W.]

UOAs are not designed to show engine wear. They show the condition of the oil, not the condition of the engine. High wear metals in a UOA is usually pretty conclusive for excessive wear. In contrast though, if wear metals are low, it's not conclusive that there isn't excessive wear. For one, the ICP can only see elements <5 um in size. (because it's looking for additives, not wear metals) There's also wear metals that get caught by the filter and thus aren't in the oil sample sent to the lab. The same for magnets. Wear metals can attract to and get trapped in sludge as it forms which can make a UOA look deceivingly better than it actually is. While UOAs can be a tool for accessing possible wear, it's not conclusive. Lake states this too in his videos which is why he does ring on liner tests with profilometer scans.

Exactly. Amazing tool when used correctly.

 

[Jw95]

Exactly. Amazing tool when used correctly.

I misunderstood then. I apologize on my part.
@RDY4WAR I greatly appreciate the information.

 

[Glenda W.]

I misunderstood then. I apologize on my part.
@RDY4WAR I greatly appreciate the information.

I apologize for being harsh on Lake. He helps a lot of people.

In the end I agree with you that an oil like Amsoil, HPL, etc. will produce better results. But short of a tear down after hundreds of thousands of miles others will claim an oil like supertech is just as good only based on UOA’s.

 

[Patman]

I apologize for being harsh on Lake. He helps a lot of people.

In the end I agree with you that an oil like Amsoil, HPL, etc. will produce better results. But short of a tear down after hundreds of thousands of miles others will claim an oil like supertech is just as good only based on UOA’s.

He has a brand new video out this morning and tested Napa, Supertech, Royal Purple and Amsoil OE and in the testing it had Napa synthetic come out on top with the lowest wear metals. But I can’t imagine it would outperform Amsoil in engine tear down testing though.

 

[Glenda W.]

He has a brand new video out this morning and tested Napa, Supertech, Royal Purple and Amsoil OE and in the testing it had Napa synthetic come out on top with the lowest wear metals. But I can’t imagine it would outperform Amsoil in engine tear down testing though.

I’ll check it out! Sounds like a perfect example. Now everyone will be claiming Napa oil is the best.

 

[Patman]

I’ll check it out! Sounds like a perfect example. Now everyone will be claiming Napa oil is the best.

That’s the problem with some of these videos

 

[buster]

Definitely the best PDS in the business. Talk about transparency.....

 

[Mainia]

As far as love for Schaffers, I use their aluminum complex grease at work and at home. But their "synthetic" rotary screw air compressor oil almost took out my $10, 000 rotary screw air compressor within 60 hrs of use of their oil . Luckily I looked in the tank at 60 hrs because the tank was full of gel. I did pull UOA, and got a "critical" 4 from Polaris Labs.

Since I bought grease from them and I was stupid to think they were a top notch oil company in my early days of dealing with oils for my work. Ha Ha was I wrong. I did talk with their Tech dept before buying and they "assured me" the oil was up to the task and was a PAO. Also I must state my works Atlas Copco brand rotary screw air compressor is one of the hardest brands on ANY oil you install in them. In my years quest with Polaris Labs to find an oil that would not varnish up in 800hrs, every PAO would be throwing 22/xx/xx to a one 23/xx/xx and would 47 to a 75 on a varnish membrane/blot test. These are all oils rated at 8,000hr oils. It took a high group 5 based turbine oil rated at 12,000 hrs and I go only 8,000 hr on it. It took this style of oil to stop the varnishing and high particulate counts which by the way was all varnish. The problem was first found on Atlas's own top tier PAO OEM oil. My final hypothesis is the Atlas Copco brand suffers from some sort of design flaw in the screw area where some "micro dieseling" is happening to beat the crap out of ANY PAO oil where other rotary screw manufactures can use PAOs without issue. Also, just as a guess I would say the Schaffers rotary screw oil I tested has a high group 3 content as it was fully damaged in 60hrs of use.