Yes, the HEMI engines aren't super complex or super high power density, that doesn't really have any bearing on this discussion though.
But how does that bear out in application? Do you think catalyst failure rate changed significantly in the move from full SAPS to low or mid SAPS? I bet it's within noise, particularly with high performance engines that get flogged regularly. As I said, the most frequent victims of catalyst failure I've observed are those driven mildly and those applications never spec'd full SAPS oils in the first place. And of course consumption is critical in how much potentially catalyst damaging metallics the cat actually sees in application.
With the implementation of GPF and DPF filters, things changed, and I must assume that they are simply more sensitive to additive contamination, but the vehicles we are discussing here aren't equipped with those, heck, they are still port injected.
UOA's have shown it to be around 700-750:
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/pennzoil-srt-0w40.246602/
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/t...0w40-vs-amsoil-0w40-ss-blackstone-uoa.338141/
Yes, you can buy generic Euro additive packages,
@High Performance Lubricants starts with a VW/A40 additive package for their 0w-40 for example, but the final product is not officially VW or Porsche approved. AMSOIL does the same thing, but only gets approvals on some of their Euro oils. You can see the 0w-40 is recommended for A40, but not approved for it. The 5w-40 on the other hand is approved:
View attachment 102099
Also, you may notice that 0w-40 doesn't show up in that PDF from Afton:
View attachment 102101
No Gokan, you are CLAIMING it's an incorrect claim. The perennial constant is your belief that your assertions, postulations and musings carry more weight than anyone else's. And yes, myriad Euro approvals are a pretty good metric to go by vs SN and some generic FCA approval.
Again, the assertion that only your speculation can be correct. I said it LOOKS like a typical SN additive package, which it does, at least based on what we can see in a VOA/UOA. It is unremarkable, I'm not sure why that gets your back up, but here we are.
Ah, so the fact that metallics in it at least make it look generic is, in your mind, torpedoed by a Russian VOA that MIGHT show additional organics based on your own extrapolation? Gotcha. You can extrapolate/postulate/speculate/muse but when the rest of us peons do it, it just isn't good enough. My God your patronizing tone drives me nuts.
Nobody said it was a God ****ed marketing gimmick! What has been repeatedly stated is that it looks more like a typical SOPUS SN/GF-5 product in terms of formulation (unremarkable) than the Euro oil it replaced. GM ran M1 5w-30 in the Corvette program for years, it is more than possible for an oil that isn't as robustly formulated in terms of AW additives and in other metrics, to be quite suitable for use in a high performance pushrod engine. That does NOT mean it would stand up to the abuse levied by a twin-Turbo Porsche engine running the 'ring where the engine oil also goes through the turbos.
Noack isn't irrelevant, that's why the Euro marques cap it, that's why all the Euro 0w-40's are below 10%. We all know why the Noack is higher, that doesn't need to be spelled out, the point is that it's higher than the product it replaced. Is that relevant to its performance in the SRT engines? Shell and FCA didn't appear to think so, but in terms of approvals and overall hoops an oil has to jump through, yes, it matters and begs mention.
I don't mind having these conversations with you, but the condescension NEEDS to stop. If you were my prof I would have dropped your class. Your ability to turn an otherwise fun technical discussion into something quite frustrating is uncanny, and it is absolutely due to the tone you take and manner in which you address other people who aren't "n00bs" and have equally long or longer tenures than yourself here.