Why is rotella hated by some?

[Foxtrot08]

What lawsuit? Where was it filed? Was it settled out of court? If not, what was the outcome? I'd like to hear about the results.
Where's the UOA data from the failed bearings, etc?
What other "Rotella shearing issues" are you referring to?
In another post, you answered about the buses also having extended OCIs; is that correct? What data exists to show that other brands (Delo, Delvac, etc) would have not sheared under those same circumstances? What you said was that they shortened the OCIs and then went to T5; is that right? So, how do you know that Delvac or Delo would have not also sheared under those same initial conditions which caused the failure(s)? Were they doing UOAs along the way? How did they end up with so many ruined bus engines? Sounds to me like they were not properly monitoring the UOA data. I'm wondering if these failures were not so much lube related, but a failure to properly monitor extended OCIs?

I cannot give much more detail on the lawsuit, as we signed an NDA. It was settled out of court. They're still a current customer of ours, so you can either believe me or not on the lawsuit.

What data exists the others wouldn't in those same situation? Well, you answered your own question, they were not doing UOA's. They were running a cheap product. My data is the fact I have several fleets on a conventional product that are extending oil drains out. I personally believe they probably would of been okay on Delo, or Castrol conventional product. I think they would of met the same fate on Delvac. There's publicly made information that Rotella T4 barely passes the DD13 scuff test. They just meet 31 hours, let alone other tests as mentioned previously.

\

Those are bearings from one of the nine engines they lost. They did not have a pre-failure UOA and a post failure UOA doesn't... really show much.

This is my own UOA - as I don't feel comfortable sharing customer's data without their written permission. You're welcome to come see it at my office. And talk to my lead chemist / engineer on our technical team about this.

This is a tank wagon (bulk oil delivery truck.) Went 6 months without an oil change. (We normally do every 10 weeks.) Unit was down for tank work between 1/2017 and 10/2017.

Our fleet averages right around 20mph. City driving, delivery time, pump time. So this is approximately, 1000-1150 hours on the oil. As far as we know, it had 3 gallons of top off oil. No major viscosity loss. No major contamination, after that period hours on the unit. (I can go back and look at our telematics if you want an exact amount of engine hours in that time frame. And yes, someone lost their job over it.)

What Rotella marketing claims are specifically "misleading"? If it's clear to you, then by all means, expressly describe it, please. Provide the links to the marketing, and show what it is you find to be misleading. And, then show me how that contrasts to the other brands; which I presume you imply that they are are not misleading. What I'm asking for is for you to be specific about the misleading claims you believe to be falsely represented by Rotella.

https://rotella.shell.com/en_us/pro...e718cd0fc768d05faab7059e52f0938/t4-15w-40.pdf

So I'll just link their own marketing page.

1. Enhanced wear protection compared to....? They say prior Rotella 15w40... but what version? Which Rotella Triple protection formulation? It has changed several times over the years.

2. Protects 50% longer than previous rotella's against oxidation? Well, how long did the previous generation last?

3. Wear protection beyond CK4 standards... Okay... on what test?

4. The DD15 images they show... They don't mention the drain interval amounts at all. They also don't mention of it was run it's entire life with Rotella or not.

5. Keeping DPF filters 'cleaner' - again... compared to what? Some random face plugged one?

Their purse swinging against Mobil was even shot down by detroit: https://jobbersworld.com/2018/06/25...s-claims-and-elm-announces-no-price-increase/

In comparison to:

https://www.docs.citgo.com/msds_pi/C10166.pdf

Pretty simple. Shows the comparable test results. Doesn't make any outlandish claims.

https://cglapps.chevron.com/sdspds/PDSDetailPage.aspx?docDataId=481951&docFormat=PDF

Same, pretty simple. They make some claims, but put the big * as well, but nothing as outrageous.

If I call "what" market priced? I never gave a dollar value for anything. What I said is that, ignoring regional sales pushes, Rotella falls inline with the other major brands in long term pricing strategy. In any given month, Rotella, Delo, Delvac, VPB, etc all have sales pushes that end up making one brand less expensive than another. What I was referencing is that the major HDEO makers typically compete in the same markets, and so they cannot afford to be unaffordable for long, lest they lose market share.

I see Oil prices differently than most. Market pricing for Rotalla T4 is normally between $14-17 bulk. National account pricing is real screwy, I've seen Rotella being delivered, significantly below distributor cost, to national accounts. So if a national account can get it for say, sub $9/gallon. Why is it worth $17 to a normal fleet? When you can get at least, a comparable product for $3-5/gallon less? When you can get a statistically better product, for the same amount, or less money? (Especially if you go up to a syn blend?)

Rotella keeps up market share, because they spend over $50 million annually on marketing. Part of this is literally just buying gallons, with the above fleets.

Employees change jobs due to all manner of reasons. That's not the inference I took from your initial complaint in your previous post. How does SOPUS employee retention relate to consumer loyalty at the shelf at Walmart??? You've lost me here.

It's a pretty big deal when you go through several General manager / Vice Presidents of Lubricants in so few years. One, lead a complete formulation change (and the naming change up) of Rotella in ~2008. Those positions dictate formulations, pricing, etc. So it's a really, really big deal when that position rolls over, especially as fast as it has in Shell. Again, not something the consumer really sees, but something I see. And then the fall out of that position being changed over.

You may have the proof, but you haven't posted it here for us to see; you've not backed up your claims. It's easy to stand behind anonymity and make bold claims. I understand that perhaps you don't have the ability to reveal where you work; no one wants you to risk losing employment. But without the data to back you up, it's just hearsay at this point.


Can you share that data? And more importantly, does it show correlation to your claims regarding the claim of Rotella shearing and the failures you reference above?

Not quite UOA's but here's some test data against T5. And you can scale it to T4.

P66 named names in their tests.

If I come off "tainted" then I haven't done a good job communicating my interests. I value data-driven investigations and decisions. When people make claims, I want to see the basis for the position. Often things are anecdotal; a sample size of one or a few. That's not enough to convince me of large scale concerns regarding oil shearing, as you imply.


I think what I object to regarding your position is that you made a lot of large, sweeping accusations with no data presented to back up your claims. That's typical of the internet conversations, for sure. I don't think anyone has any "dismay" about your love or hate for SOPUS; I doubt anyone here is that deeply vested into your opinion as to be dismayed. It's not that your opinions are invalid; it's just that they're unproven to us here at BITOG. What your family does really doesn't interest.

Help me, and others, understand these bus failures; tell us the specifics about the lawsuit and evidence presented therein, relative to Rotella and it's "shearing" and "misleading marketing".

I'm not trying to taunt or troll you; I apologize if it comes off that way. What I want to see is the real data to backup your claims.

That's the data I can share, off the top of my head without digging through more files and scanning them in.

And, to me, you're certainly trying to troll me. Again, my opinion.

 

[OVERKILL]

T6, I’ll echo my previous statements. I think it’s fine. I haven’t seen the issues others have with it in this thread. But I don’t pay attention to the motorcycle market at all being honest. I see very little T6 in the heavy duty market place, outside of retail sales. A few smaller fleets here or there will run T6 5w40.

I haven’t seen much Delvac 5w40 in the market place. I can’t think of one fleet off the top of my head in my market region that runs it actively.

I do see a lot of it in back up generators. Like… a lot of it. A number of generator maintenance companies swear by Delvac 5w40.

I can think of a few that do run Mobil Delvac 5w30. One fleet had early problems with it, in pre-emission CAT engines. They were a mixed fleet. Lost all their 2003-2008 CAT c12s. Oil problem? Maybe. This was a few years ago. National tanker fleet.

5w40 is a weird one in my area. Most people skipped over it… we have a few contractors on it… a bit of C1000 and Kendall SHP. But trying to sell fleets $20/gal plus oil is hard. When a syn blend 10w30 can be had for under $15.

When PC11 was under development we helped out Afton with a few million miles of fleet testing / on road testing with 5w40 formulations. So I’m *speculating* that it would be similar formulation to what you see in T6 right now.

I generally like 5w40. It’s just a hard sell price wise for fleets. For consumers, that aren’t trying to do 80,000-120,000 mile drain intervals, again. Not pushing the oil. If you like it, use it. Any brand will be fine.


But I don’t get into the UP of Michigan. We stop about at traverse city. Doesn’t really get cold enough to truly justify a synthetic 5w40 often. At least not consistently that you’ll see in other places.

Edit:

Delo has very little market share in my area. I only run across drums of Delo 5w40. Nothing in bulk really. Maybe a few farms in Michigan. But I can’t really comment on that market much. We mostly play in the Commercial and industrial market. Along with our pcmo business of course. Ag is hard to break into if you’re not a co-op.

Our county plows run D1 5W-40 and have had good service from it, from what I understand.

 

[travis8352]

Our county plows run D1 5W-40 and have had good service from it, from what I understand.

When i deliver to shops in my area i always scan around and see what everyones running. Have not seen delvac 1 5w40 in my area suprisingly. Lots of delo flavors around here and 1 castrol vecton

 

[Jim K]

I don`t hate Rotella .

 

[dnewton3]

FT08 -

Thanks for posting what info you can share; I understand not all is going to be available with the NDA in place.

I think for me this boils down to a matter of your unique perspective as an owner of an oil distribution company, etc. Few, if any, BITOG members have that perspective. When you related your opinion here, it certainly wasn't clear at first why you had the position you stated. And frankly, your perspective means little to most of us. We don't deal with account GMs and VPs. We don't deal with bulk wholesale or national fleet account buying. Most here concern themselves (forming their opinions) based on how they shop for Rotella at the local WM or farm supply store. And, they judge the Rotella based on their personal UOAs (which admittedly almost always are based on short-to-moderate OCI distances in light duty trucks or single use OTR applications).

As for the bus failures themselves, you did indicate is was some time ago; does the NDA expire soon? I'd still like to see the data, but I'm unlikely to travel to your office to view it.

Regarding the oxidation, well, I'm not convinced we can "scale it" from T5 to T4 directly; that's a big leap. Deposit weighting is interesting. But neither of these were in your initial complaints; that centered around shearing, and because oxidation and deposit control have little to nothing to do with shearing, you really didn't back up your initial claims with proof, and rather, did a slight-of-hand "look over here" attempt to bedazzle us with something else.

As for the T-6, you seem to recommend it more so over the T4, which I find odd. T-6 in 5w-40 (the most prominent vis at the retail level) is heavily laden with VIIs to get such a large spread of vis rating; far more VIIs than say T4 or T5. The VIIs in group III lubes is what shears, not really the base stock. So I find it a bit perplexing that you're recommending something that has been shown to shear more than other products in the Rotella line. Your initial post complaints surround the T4 shearing, and yet you recommend T6 which is more prone to shearing. Can you explain that for us please?


As for the marketing stuff, I get it; there's a lot of info left out of their marketing claims. But ...
That's true for other brands you mention as well. Rotella is not alone here; several of the companies make bold claims (typically against their own previous products), and the proof is hard if not impossible to find. That's why marketing is so successful; it's good at luring in the gullible. Mobil, Delo and others also lay out some fairly vague claims; not a lot of detail in their marketing. Lots of vague claims with little testing details. "50% better" ... "1.5x better" ... it goes on and on. And few if any of these marketing claims are backed up with direct test results either. I understand your complaints about Rotella. What I don't understand is your bias against Rotella in the face of other lame and vague marketing touts from Rotella's competitors.
https://www.mobil.com/en/lubricants...cants/products/mobil-delvac-1300-super-15w-40
https://www.chevronlubricants.com/en_us/home/products/delo-400-sde-sae-15w-40.html
https://www.valvolineglobal.com/en/valvoline-premium-blue-one-solution-gen2/
etc ...


I trust that your opinion is valid, but it's based on some fairly specific experiences which are unique, and most of the buying public doesn't have. You have shown where your opinions come from in terms of marketing, but really your complaints here fall on deaf ears because you've ignored the same "misleading" (vague) claims from other brands. Further, no one here really cares about wholesale or national fleet pricing because it's not relevant to their lives; Rotella is cost competitive in most markets in a retail sense. Finally, you've yet to adequately explain how Rotella T4 shearing is somehow avoided by using T6, a product which has more VIIs than T4, and yet you seem to tout T6 as the answer to shearing.

 

[Foxtrot08]

FT08 -

Thanks for posting what info you can share; I understand not all is going to be available with the NDA in place.

I think for me this boils down to a matter of your unique perspective as an owner of an oil distribution company, etc. Few, if any, BITOG members have that perspective. When you related your opinion here, it certainly wasn't clear at first why you had the position you stated. And frankly, your perspective means little to most of us. We don't deal with account GMs and VPs. We don't deal with bulk wholesale or national fleet account buying. Most here concern themselves (forming their opinions) based on how they shop for Rotella at the local WM or farm supply store. And, they judge the Rotella based on their personal UOAs (which admittedly almost always are based on short-to-moderate OCI distances in light duty trucks or single use OTR applications).

We will get back to this.

As for the bus failures themselves, you did indicate is was some time ago; does the NDA expire soon? I'd still like to see the data, but I'm unlikely to travel to your office to view it.

Regarding the oxidation, well, I'm not convinced we can "scale it" from T5 to T4 directly; that's a big leap. Deposit weighting is interesting. But neither of these were in your initial complaints; that centered around shearing, and because oxidation and deposit control have little to nothing to do with shearing, you really didn't back up your initial claims with proof, and rather, did a slight-of-hand "look over here" attempt to bedazzle us with something else.

As I said, the UOA on the bus fleet was pretty useless. The damage had already happened, doesn't show anything besides low viscosity (which, due to the nature of the damage, would happen anyways.) And a bunch of contamination. UOA's are only helpful pre-damage, when in comparison to a VoA, or other UOA's, in my opinion.

It's very easy to scale from a syn blend down to a conventional, again, in my opinion when you know what you're looking for. You know there is going to be commonality in the product's additive package. So, take it and put it in a Group II product... Not a hard concept to me at least. As for calling slight of hand, I gave the information I had off the top of my head, that I could give. If you want to call it a bedazzling, then, see my comments when I get back to the top.

As for the T-6, you seem to recommend it more so over the T4, which I find odd. T-6 in 5w-40 (the most prominent vis at the retail level) is heavily laden with VIIs to get such a large spread of vis rating; far more VIIs than say T4 or T5. The VIIs in group III lubes is what shears, not really the base stock. So I find it a bit perplexing that you're recommending something that has been shown to shear more than other products in the Rotella line. Your initial post complaints surround the T4 shearing, and yet you recommend T6 which is more prone to shearing. Can you explain that for us please?

I'm comparing T6 against it's industry competitors. C1000, SHP, Delvac 1, XSP... They all generally perform about the same, shearing wise. In comparison to T4, which shears quicker, than say C600 15w40 or Delo 400 SDE 15w40. T6 is available off the shelf, nearly everywhere, so for people that want to run a 5w40, it's there, you can get it, etc. So, again, compared to it's competitors, it's fine, in my opinion. I never said anything about it shearing or not.

As for the marketing stuff, I get it; there's a lot of info left out of their marketing claims. But ...
That's true for other brands you mention as well. Rotella is not alone here; several of the companies make bold claims (typically against their own previous products), and the proof is hard if not impossible to find. That's why marketing is so successful; it's good at luring in the gullible. Mobil, Delo and others also lay out some fairly vague claims; not a lot of detail in their marketing. Lots of vague claims with little testing details. "50% better" ... "1.5x better" ... it goes on and on. And few if any of these marketing claims are backed up with direct test results either. I understand your complaints about Rotella. What I don't understand is your bias against Rotella in the face of other lame and vague marketing touts from Rotella's competitors.
https://www.mobil.com/en/lubricants...cants/products/mobil-delvac-1300-super-15w-40
https://www.chevronlubricants.com/en_us/home/products/delo-400-sde-sae-15w-40.html
https://www.valvolineglobal.com/en/valvoline-premium-blue-one-solution-gen2/
etc ...

Particularly making bold claims against competitors without proof? That's... pretty aggressive for Rotella to do. Which is why I even linked the PQIA post about it. I also particularly think Valvoline is bad with their marketing claims. (24x times stronger protection!!!!!!!! OMG!) Yeah... Actually I think Valvoline is the worse in the market place with marketing claims without any support. (Outside of some of the boutique blenders.)

And again, in the original post, I was replying, particularly to Rotella. The original post did not say Vavoline, Mobil, Chevron, etc. it asked for Rotella. So I answered the question about Rotella. If OP asked for my opinion about Vavoline premium blue, I would say the same thing about their marketing.

I trust that your opinion is valid, but it's based on some fairly specific experiences which are unique, and most of the buying public doesn't have. You have shown where your opinions come from in terms of marketing, but really your complaints here fall on deaf ears because you've ignored the same "misleading" (vague) claims from other brands. Further, no one here really cares about wholesale or national fleet pricing because it's not relevant to their lives; Rotella is cost competitive in most markets in a retail sense. Finally, you've yet to adequately explain how Rotella T4 shearing is somehow avoided by using T6, a product which has more VIIs than T4, and yet you seem to tout T6 as the answer to shearing.

I never said T6 is the answer to shearing. I said it's alright product. Which means, in it's product class, it's about the same.

Now, we're going to get back to the top and merge it with the rest of this post.

Firstly, it's very clear you're targeting my opinion. Is it because I'm a professional on a hobbyist site? Because I deal with tens of millions of gallons of oil every year, dealing with the major oil companies, dealing with the blenders that blend with them? (Such as Gordon terminal, that blends for Shell... and a bunch of others.) And because I can get to the sources with the additive companies? Yes, it comes with somethings, such as not being able to show proof always. So, it is what it is, thus my statement is an opinion.

I don't see you going after any other opinion's in this thread. Asking them for proof of why they either like Rotella, or don't like Rotella. I see you targeting my personal opinion, for whatever reason, to the point of claiming I'm bedazzling or doing a slight of hand. When you haven't proven anything wrong. If anything you admitted to my point. Short to moderate OCI distances, small sample sizes. Where I get to see huge fleets, I get to see it in large stationary engine applications. I get to see it in construction equipment. I get to see HUGE sample sizes. I'm not asking for any special consideration, I'm not here demanding my opinion count more than yours, or anyone else's in this thread.

It's just the opinion of another ******e on the internet. That's all I am. Take it for whatever it's worth.

Now, if my opinion isn't welcome here, because I am a professional on a hobbyist forum, tell me. Yes, I see a completely different side of the industry. Much like a doctor gets to see the health care industry different than a patient. (My SO is a plastic surgeon... so the example off the top of my head.)

My perspective, in your words, means little.

So why are you making such a point targeting me? Or is it just not welcomed here because "it means so little."

You tell me.

 

[OVERKILL]

We will get back to this.



As I said, the UOA on the bus fleet was pretty useless. The damage had already happened, doesn't show anything besides low viscosity (which, due to the nature of the damage, would happen anyways.) And a bunch of contamination. UOA's are only helpful pre-damage, when in comparison to a VoA, or other UOA's, in my opinion.

It's very easy to scale from a syn blend down to a conventional, again, in my opinion when you know what you're looking for. You know there is going to be commonality in the product's additive package. So, take it and put it in a Group II product... Not a hard concept to me at least. As for calling slight of hand, I gave the information I had off the top of my head, that I could give. If you want to call it a bedazzling, then, see my comments when I get back to the top.


I'm comparing T6 against it's industry competitors. C1000, SHP, Delvac 1, XSP... They all generally perform about the same, shearing wise. In comparison to T4, which shears quicker, than say C600 15w40 or Delo 400 SDE 15w40. T6 is available off the shelf, nearly everywhere, so for people that want to run a 5w40, it's there, you can get it, etc. So, again, compared to it's competitors, it's fine, in my opinion. I never said anything about it shearing or not.



Particularly making bold claims against competitors without proof? That's... pretty aggressive for Rotella to do. Which is why I even linked the PQIA post about it. I also particularly think Valvoline is bad with their marketing claims. (24x times stronger protection!!!!!!!! OMG!) Yeah... Actually I think Valvoline is the worse in the market place with marketing claims without any support. (Outside of some of the boutique blenders.)

And again, in the original post, I was replying, particularly to Rotella. The original post did not say Vavoline, Mobil, Chevron, etc. it asked for Rotella. So I answered the question about Rotella. If OP asked for my opinion about Vavoline premium blue, I would say the same thing about their marketing.




I never said T6 is the answer to shearing. I said it's alright product. Which means, in it's product class, it's about the same.

Now, we're going to get back to the top and merge it with the rest of this post.

Firstly, it's very clear you're targeting my opinion. Is it because I'm a professional on a hobbyist site? Because I deal with tens of millions of gallons of oil every year, dealing with the major oil companies, dealing with the blenders that blend with them? (Such as Gordon terminal, that blends for Shell... and a bunch of others.) And because I can get to the sources with the additive companies? Yes, it comes with somethings, such as not being able to show proof always. So, it is what it is, thus my statement is an opinion.

I don't see you going after any other opinion's in this thread. Asking them for proof of why they either like Rotella, or don't like Rotella. I see you targeting my personal opinion, for whatever reason, to the point of claiming I'm bedazzling or doing a slight of hand. When you haven't proven anything wrong. If anything you admitted to my point. Short to moderate OCI distances, small sample sizes. Where I get to see huge fleets, I get to see it in large stationary engine applications. I get to see it in construction equipment. I get to see HUGE sample sizes. I'm not asking for any special consideration, I'm not here demanding my opinion count more than yours, or anyone else's in this thread.

It's just the opinion of another ******e on the internet. That's all I am. Take it for whatever it's worth.

Now, if my opinion isn't welcome here, because I am a professional on a hobbyist forum, tell me. Yes, I see a completely different side of the industry. Much like a doctor gets to see the health care industry different than a patient. (My SO is a plastic surgeon... so the example off the top of my head.)

My perspective, in your words, means little.

So why are you making such a point targeting me? Or is it just not welcomed here because "it means so little."

You tell me.

You noted that you see 5W-40 used more in stationary (genset) applications. Can its performance in this application be compared to the bus situation?

 

[Foxtrot08]

You noted that you see 5W-40 used more in stationary (genset) applications. Can its performance in this application be compared to the bus situation?

Nah. I see it primarily used in stand by generators. Rarely run, contractually maintained. Sometime with telematrics, sometimes without depending on the size of the gensets.

These units typically start up for 30 minutes to an hour, once a week. They'll have quarterly service intervals unless heavily run for an outage or such. Hospitals, universities, homes, office buildings. Sometimes larger gensets will still use it, I do know we have a few data centers that run it, but primarily because money is no option.

These engines are rarely run 24/7, unless some sort of power outage. Even then a 2-3 day power outage in my area is... mind boggling.

The lawsuit application, was off-grid, generators running 24/7 supporting a mining operation. 300 hours goes real fast at 24/7.

Edit:

Fun story, I bought one of these generators... It was installed at a University in 1982... When I purchased it, almost 40 years later, it had 227 hours on it.

 

[travis8352]

Nah. I see it primarily used in stand by generators. Rarely run, contractually maintained. Sometime with telematrics, sometimes without depending on the size of the gensets.

These units typically start up for 30 minutes to an hour, once a week. They'll have quarterly service intervals unless heavily run for an outage or such. Hospitals, universities, homes, office buildings. Sometimes larger gensets will still use it, I do know we have a few data centers that run it, but primarily because money is no option.

These engines are rarely run 24/7, unless some sort of power outage. Even then a 2-3 day power outage in my area is... mind boggling.

The lawsuit application, was off-grid, generators running 24/7 supporting a mining operation. 300 hours goes real fast at 24/7.

Edit:

Fun story, I bought one of these generators... It was installed at a University in 1982... When I purchased it, almost 40 years later, it had 227 hours on it.

do you have any experience or opinions on mobil delvac extreme 15w40?

 

[Foxtrot08]

do you have any experience or opinions on mobil delvac extreme 15w40?

Not on a huge scale. We got smoked by it in one fleet. Mobil promises a lot with it.

But I can't say I've tested it.

 

[OVERKILL]

As for the T-6, you seem to recommend it more so over the T4, which I find odd. T-6 in 5w-40 (the most prominent vis at the retail level) is heavily laden with VIIs to get such a large spread of vis rating; far more VIIs than say T4 or T5.

I'd be careful making those sorts of assumptions. Here's something from Mobil, that shows three ways of blending an E7 (CI-4) 15W-40:

Mobil shows 8.5% VM for a PAO-based 5W-40, with a base oil blend of 64% 6cSt PAO and 36% 8cSt PAO

Mobil shows a 15W-40 CK-4 blended with EHC to be 90% 5cSt Group II and 10% 11cSt Group II:

Mobil doesn't list KV100 for the AP/E Core bases, however, they can be calculated.
AP/E Core 150 has a KV40 of 30.5cSt, a VI of 100, which means it has a KV100 of ~5cSt.
AP/E Core 600 has a KV40 of 112.5cSt, a VI of 95, which means it has a V100 of 11.5cSt

So, if we were to calculate the base oil viscosity of these four lubricants:

EHC CI-4 15W-40: 7.3cSt
PAO CK-4 5W-40: 6.64cSt
EHC CK-4 15W-40: 5.39cSt
APE CI-4 15W-40: 6.10cSt

So, the 5W-40 has a heavier base oil blend than everything but the EHC CI-4 15W-40.

And that's not mentioning the quality of VI's used in more expensive synthetic 5W-40 vs the much lower cost 15W-40, which is likely to explain @Foxtrot08's observation about T-4 shearing earlier than the 5W-40's.

 

[buster]

Guys I only use BROTELLA in my ride. Honda Civic 140hp.

 

[53' Stude]

Guys I only use BROTELLA in my ride. Honda Civic 140hp.

Priceless

 

[Fishstyx]

A whole lot of antidote evidence here. Like to see cited sources to back up claims.

 

[cptbarkey]

Not on a huge scale. We got smoked by it in one fleet. Mobil promises a lot with it.

But I can't say I've tested it.

What does “smoked by it” mean?

 

[JRay’07]

I would like to ask about the operating conditions of these vehicles experiencing excessive bearing wear. Is a significant warm-up time allowed? Sometimes operators place cold engines under unnecessary stress.

Just wanted to ask before throwing Rotella T4 under the bus

 

[Foxtrot08]

What does “smoked by it” mean?

Large combined fleet (Mining, garbage dump, truck fleet), about 60,000 gallons of engine oil a year alone, went to it. Mobil made a lot of promises on drain intervals, ease of cold starts, etc. Even though it was much higher price, this customer was/is always concerned about extending drain intervals as long as possible, as maintenance & down time is an issue for them. So they push engine oils to the limits.

 

[cptbarkey]

Large combined fleet (Mining, garbage dump, truck fleet), about 60,000 gallons of engine oil a year alone, went to it. Mobil made a lot of promises on drain intervals, ease of cold starts, etc. Even though it was much higher price, this customer was/is always concerned about extending drain intervals as long as possible, as maintenance & down time is an issue for them. So they push engine oils to the limits.

thank you for the context, still confused on "smoked." do you mean gas lighted, tricked, or what exactly?

 

[Foxtrot08]

thank you for the context, still confused on "smoked." do you mean gas lighted, tricked, or what exactly?

Got beat / lost the customer. That’s all. Nothing malicious. We just didn’t do our job well enough. The Mobil reps did a better job.

 

[Redhawk454]

I understand fleets maximizing oil life since those engines are viewed as disposable and consumable, and it’s expensive to constantly change oil on something that can take over 50 quarts of oil but my personal vehicles I want to get 500k, 600k, 700k maybe a million out of them