DPF for sure.
As I said, any quality XW-40 is probably OK in this engine. Chances are that you can even run an HDEO.
Yes, the HEMI engines aren't super complex or super high power density, that doesn't really have any bearing on this discussion though.Gokhan said:
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.Gokhan said:
UOA's have shown it to be around 700-750:Gokhan said:
Gokhan said:
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 didn't mean to be condescending or patronizing. You are absolutely right that the students hate condescending TAs and professors at the college I am at.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.
Owner can run UOA’s to get some data points.
Only lab-testing though, no engine-testing, right? I remember you had your oils tested for only a few thousand dollars. I can't imagine VW engine-testing them for that cheap. Engine-testing typically costs hundreds of thousands of dollars or more.
Yes, I would imagine they would, as I'm not a fan of it here where I tend to feel that, with these sorts of discussions, it is amongst peers, all with valid points though perhaps differing perspectives.
We know that the full-SAPS oils have higher levels of conventional AW chemistry, that's not up for debate. And while, yes, that's one of the things I'm referencing, I'm also basing it on the number of hoops the Euro 0w-40's have to jump through; the approvals they carry, the number of which are considerable. Worded differently: The SRT 0w-40 is only SN plus the FCA approval, which, previously, a separate product didn't need to be developed to meet (it was met with a Euro oil). Contrarily, the Euro 0w-40's have A40, VW 502, MB 229.5...etc. That's a lot more rigorous testing, in a lot of very different applications. It's a bigger formulation challenge.
I wouldn't consider that a counter-example. A VW 504 oil like M1 ESP 0w-30 is also certified for Porsche C30 (same performance requirements as A40), MB 229.31/51/52 and VW 507. That's what I'm driving at, the Euro oils are all multi-certified, this caps Noack at 10% for example for this product and imposes numerous engine tests and performance requirements.
Shell's claims are a bit vague. This product was developed extremely quickly and, since it only really has one application, one has to consider that it is only formulated to the level of performance required for the MS approval it carries, which, historically, based on what we've seen with other FCA approvals, haven't been overly stringent.
Well, the PDS is identical to what it showed 10 years ago, so I have no reason to believe that the product was updated. So, it's an educated guess that the Noack hasn't changed if the PDS hasn't.
Well, on the Noack, as noted, it is based on the unchanged PDS over the life of the product so far, which would prompt one to logically conclude that the product also hasn't changed.
I'd saw we don't have detailed formulation knowledge of the SRT 0w-40, but, on paper, based on what we DO know, it doesn't appear as heavily fortified as the oil it replaced or the full-SAPS Euro 0w-40's. I'm not sure if there is a "booster" additive, but I definitely expect there are additives we can't see in a VOA. We know that Mobil uses borated compounds to improve AW/FM performance, so that may be the case here as well, or something similar, but that also doesn't mean they aren't using that chemistry in their other SN/SP products
I think that the Euro 0w-40's are better oils, but I don't think it will make much if any difference in terms of performance in the application. I run Euro 0w-40's because of that belief, but that doesn't mean I think the SRT 0w-40 is "bad", I just like the peace of mind of all the Euro approvals, which we know many of the details of.
If you saw my comment about the AMSOIL lubes and the fact that 0w-40 doesn't appear on that Afton list, I'm wondering if there may be some grade specifics for some of this stuff. Also, an A40 additive package MAY (I'm not sure, just throwing that out there) not mean that you get to say the product has A40. Like the AMSOIL 0w-40 where it is recommended for A40 and the 5w-40 is approved, perhaps you can buy an A40 approved additive package, but if you use it in a 0w-40, the product still needs formal testing? Just speculating of course.
Not sure what is going on with A40 and 0W-40. Perhaps A40 is no longer given to 0W-40 but only to 5W-40 oils now?
Oh, no, PP Ultra definitely has an entirely new formulation with a mixed calcium/magnesium detergent now, which was either introduced with SN PLUS or SP. It used to be an all-calcium detergent. Other things like boron level have changed, too.Well, the PDS is identical to what it showed 10 years ago, so I have no reason to believe that the product was updated. So, it's an educated guess that the Noack hasn't changed if the PDS hasn't.
Well, on the Noack, as noted, it is based on the unchanged PDS over the life of the product so far, which would prompt one to logically conclude that the product also hasn't changed.
I'd saw we don't have detailed formulation knowledge of the SRT 0w-40, but, on paper, based on what we DO know, it doesn't appear as heavily fortified as the oil it replaced or the full-SAPS Euro 0w-40's. I'm not sure if there is a "booster" additive, but I definitely expect there are additives we can't see in a VOA. We know that Mobil uses borated compounds to improve AW/FM performance, so that may be the case here as well, or something similar, but that also doesn't mean they aren't using that chemistry in their other SN/SP products
Well, if you look at those two UOA's I posted earlier, the one is from 2015, the other from 2020. Both are reasonably high moly, with high levels of calcium, very little magnesium. But I was referring more to the base oil blend, since the PDS hasn't changed since the product was first introduced.
Yeah, I don't know, and I suspect we won't know other than agreeing that they are using something we can't see to make these products better than their cheaper offerings.
Well, the add pack—everything including magnesium, moly, and boron—is entirely different in the SP formulation. I can't imagine the viscosity values staying the same when they update the add pack because the add pack itself is a major contributor to the viscosity. Knowing how poor Shell's datasheets are and their past datasheet errors all over the place, I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't bother to update the actual numbers.
Porsche conducts oil testing on machine simulating 8X1hrs of Nordschleife.
He needs to wait few more days. He will sell the carThere you go, OP—more conflicting answers.
No - to gain Porsche A40 there is a long engine test in a Porsche engine to pass (plus the usual ACEA/VW stuff).
Yeah, but the point is that the additive company (such as Lubrizol etc.) providing the add pack has this very expensive test performed and paid for so that the blenders don't have to do it and pay for it. Such engine tests could cost in the order of a million dollars. The blenders only need to do the engine test if they make their own add packs instead of buying an already-tested third-party add pack. Typically only major blenders can afford these engine tests if they decide to go with their own add packs. For small blenders, including boutique oils, the only option to have these approvals is to use a third-party add pack.
Company I worked for was also buying additive packs from major players, but still had to send oil samples for testing to get actual approval.
Well, here's a UOA that appears to show both SN and SP:
