Chevron Delo 400LE 10w30 vs. Schaeffer #711 10w30

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: salesrep
3-5% is actually concervative if you also switch out the differentials and tranny. We have been seeing 4-8% mpg gains in the big rigs.


For the big rigs, that might be true. That claim of 4-8% might be true if moving from a poorly maintained vehicle with marginal fluids to a super-duper maintained state of tune with premium lubes, but it's difficult to achieve in the real world for the rest of us.

Further, this isn't a big rig forum overall, and most people here are not in a situation to achieve such a huge gain because they probably are already (nearly) maxed out on efficieny anyway. Am I to believe that by just switching from dino to syn, I going to see a 6% average return? I already run a dino 10w-30 HDEO in my truck, and 5w-20 in my car. Are synthetics that good as to produce such a shift? I doubt it.

The original claim was 3-5%. I asked for some proof, and then got a claim of 4-8% for big rigs. That wasn't the "proof" I was seeking.

Also, keep in mind some vehicles come with synthetics from the OEM. My 2006 Dmax truck came with 75w-90 syn in the rear and the Allisons made in Indy come with TES-295 in them. Even the Allisons from Baltimore have come with DEX VI (a low vis fluid) since 2006. That means that the entire "3-5%" claim must come from the engine oil switch. Ford uses syns and semisyns in their OEM stuff as well as thinner fluids, too. So does Chrysler.

Nearly all the large market lube makers like Shell, Castrol, Mobil etc claim 1-3% when going from a dino to syn, but they ALSO are typically including a move to a lighter grade. I believe the grade shift has much more to do with mileage gains than does a base stock shift. I SERIOUSLY doubt a syn 40 grade is going to be that more efficient than a dino 40 grade just upon the "slippery factor" alone.

This reminds me of the guy that had to stop every hundred miles and siphon fuel out of his gas tank. He added up all the "claims" of fuel economy increases stated on a government website many years ago and figured his vehicle became so fuel efficient that it was producing, rather than consuming, fuel. You can recall all the rhetoric if you think back far enough: X% for a clean air filter, X% for airing up the tires, X% for fresh lubes, X% for keeping the exterior clean (less drag), X% for fresh spark plugs and wires, etc etc etc.

I would ask to see the proof to convince me otherwise because I don't see the typical BITOG guy or gal getting 5-7% increase, because they probably are already maxing out everything; it's their nature. Again, I'm sure there are some rare cases where it might be shown, but the vast average is not anywhere near that kind of a fuel economy increase by just switching to synthetics, of any brand.

For reference:
http://www.castrol.com/liveassets/bp_int.../0-999/1854.pdf shows a move from 15w-40 dino to 5w-30 syn in HDEO. 4% "max" is just that; it's not an average. It's under ideal conditions.

http://www.shell.com/home/content/rotella/products/t5/ shows Rotella semi-syn gaining 1.6% when moving from a dino to semi, but there is ALSO the grade shift from 40 grade to 30 grade.

http://www.shell.com/home/content/rotella/products/t6/ here Shell claims "fuel economy" gains with T6 when contrasted to dino 15w-40, but it must be so darn small that they don't define the savings. It's probably there, but it's nowhere near 5%. Probably much more like less than 1%; if it were a large difference, they'd advertise it!

http://www.mobil.com/USA-English-LCW/hea...1-esp-5w40.aspx Here Delvac 1 is listed for a 1% gain, but it doesn't state what it was compared to. Note their asterisk comment "depends upon ... current engine oil viscosity."

http://www.valvoline.com/products/commercial-industrial-products/oem-endorsed-products/11 Valvoline is up to 3% for class 8 trucks, and they have an asterisk, but I cannot locate the qualifying statement. Still a "3% maximum improvement" is a high limit, and NOT the average. The "real" improvement is probably 1-2% and we have no idea what grades they are comparing and contrasting. Still, 3% max is right in line with my claims in my post above, and nowhere near the 5% others claim.

http://www.deloperformance.com/products/engine-oils.aspx#product4 note that Delo claims fuel savings from grade selection but NOT from base stock moves. However, in this report, there is a VERY interesting claim of the grade versus base stock: http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read...my-improvements Here is the Delo 10w-30 grade oil showing 1% over a 15w-40. NOTE that the lighter grade dino actually shows an improvement over the 5w-40 syn!!!!!! That's interesting, is it not? They are showing the lighter grade to be more important to fuel savings than the syn!

http://www.schaefferoil.com/supreme-9000-engine-oil.html and this http://www.schaefferoil.com/energy-savings-calculator.html don't even have quantified claims for economy savings. I see words that claim savings, but I don't see any factual claims specifically directing me to what "savings" there is. The "energy savings calculator" does not even have a link that I can find that helps me calcuate the savings ... (tried on 11-17-11 @ 0730 EST; perhaps the site was down? No, I doubt it because every other link on the Shaeffer site was working). Just what "calculator" am I supposed to see here?

Now, once again I find myself in a topic where people are going to say I'm a "synthetic oil basher". Folks, that's just not true. I am, in fact, a synthetic lube user. There are certain situations that make sense in my fleet where I see the benefits to using synthetics. But, I have a clear, open-minded understanding of both the benefits and limitations of synthetics. I do NOT accept hype and rhetoric as the gospel.

Here's what I'd believe as pratical. Moving from a moderately maintained vehicle with thicker dino fluids everywhere, to a well maintained state including thinner synthetics in the engine, tranny and diff, PERHAPS MAYBE could net 5%. That's taking the entire vehicle into account.

Salesrep, your original statement was "3-5% fuel economy" gains. JMO claimed 7% gain by just going to 5w-30 syn. Frankly gentlemen, I SERIOUSLY doubt that. This thread was NOT about a move from all thick dino fluids (eng, tranny, diff). This thread was about Delo 10w-30 to Shaeffers 10w-30. I doubt there would be 0.5% economy gain going from a dino to a semi-syn in that regard. While your comments of "3-5%" might be true, they also have to be viewed in context. And in this context, your comments are not correct at all.

I'm not calling you two out to be rude or start a fight, but I find your claims bogus, to be frank.

The two greatest contributors to fuel economy gains are:
1) driving style
2) lube grade
In that order.

 

[turfequiptech]

We have tried the #711 in the machines that were running full synthetic we have not seen a difference in those machines there have been no top offs or other oil consumption. These are air cooled gas engines running at approximately 32-3600 rpms for 3-4 hours. One machine is a air cooled 23 hp Kohler that runs non stop ful throttle the entire time it is out. It blows leaves and can easily see 7 full hours of use in one day. With the Schaeffers over the previous full synthetic it still used no make up oil. That being said if the 711 can be used here without issue, it can eliminate the use of one oil in the shop and reduce inventory and potential mix ups as the synthetic was not diesel engine rated. The synthetic was Chevron full synthetic and previous was the Shell full synthetic. Change interval was weekly in fall season. I am not implying that we needed the synthetic at all or the the Delo LE wouldn't have done the job, it is just that we started using synthetic in these engines at the first oil change and were reluctant to switch to the 400LE
We have Kubota and John Deere (yanmar) diesel engines that require a 100 oil change and three newer Kubotas that require 200 hour interval. We stretch the bigger tractor engines to 150 hours and change the smaller engines as close to 200 hours as we can. If I stretch every change out an extra 100 hours and eliminate oil from the inventory I consider myself ahead.

Fuel consumption is not something that we track close enough to be able to detect a 3-5% variation either way. Some days we use less, somedays we use more as the work loads change.

Since my original post we have put the 711 in two tractors, but at this point the hours wont accumulate until spring. I was mostly trying to see what the advantage of the synthetic blend would have over the Delo dino, and if the Schaeffer ad pack was substantially better. I am aware trying is the best way to see for yourself, the 711 is already working well in the areas we have tried it and I have no doubt it it perform well in other application as well.

In regard to the fuel economy and some of the comments by dnewton3. The way I understand the claim of fuel economy increase was based on their claim to use "micron moly" and "Penetro". That the use of these two products helped to increase fuel economy and not the synthetic versus dino fact. What are your thoughts on those two ingredients or ingredient blends?

I will keep you posted and when I figure out how to post UOA and VOA I will.

 

[Jim Allen]

Dave- Nothing I have seen contradicts your basic analysis. Any mpg gains from an oil depends on how much "better" the new oil is (base oil additives, etc) versus the old oil, or how much difference there might be in the viscosity.

I think the place where you can see and easily measure real MPG gains lie in the gear oil realms, not the engine. Going from a, "ordinary" mineral to a synthetic, same grade, can give you from 1-2 percent (much of the FE is lost during the long period required for warmup and to thin the mineral oil... whereas the syn runs thinner at all temps). Go to the Lubrizol website, http://www.axlefacts.com>
to see their material on gear oil additives and low vis gear oil testing. IIRC, 3 percent improvements are pretty easy using some of the newest FMs combined with a synthetic base. I believe one test shows even more (2-3 percent more) by going to a lower viscosity gear oil in the 75 grade but one that was bolstered with cutting age additives

RE engine oil: There is a 1998 SAE paper (#982502) that breaks it down in four GM vehicles with engines from 2.3 to 5.7L in which oil from 0W10 to 10W40 was used and FE measured. It was noted that oil viscosity had "no significant effect" on the FE of the 5.7L engine but the three smaller engine's FE showed a "strong dependence" on viscosity. Dependence was stronger in city driving (low oil temps) than it was for highway driving (high oil temps). From their reference ASTM oil, they gained an averaged 2 percent going to a 0W10 oil and lost 1.5 percent going to the 10W40 (the three smaller engines, 2.3L, 3.1L, 3.8L).

In the same tests, the engine's response to FMs (both organic and Moly types) were tested. The average for all engines was 1.6 percent on the Moly FM and 1.5 percent on the organic and in all cases, the effect was higher for highway use than for city driving.

From these facts, we can extrapolate that you could gain up to nearly 2 percent with a really slippery oil of the same viscosity as you are using now (and I mean exactly the same viscosity in cSt, not by grade in which there could be significant differences in actual cSt viscosities from oil to oil) and up to 3 percent if you dropped one grade.

The comment on the big engine offering up no change in FE in oils from 0W10 to 10W40 interested me because I found no changes going from 5W20 to 10W30. Initially I attributed it to the differences being small enough that I couldn't see them though the noise and variability of the methods I have to use for checking FE. Maybe it's really just a big engine thing.


In another SAE Paper #1999-01-3468 submitted by engineers at Honda, the effect of a 0W20 oil vs 5W30 (exactly the same additives) was tested on a 1.0L, OHC engine and the FE difference was listed as 1.5 percent. cam wear was slightly higher with the thinner oil (looks like a couple of micrometers on the graph)

In another test (SAE 2002-01-2681) on a 2.1L diesel, fuel economy was tested separately based on viscosity, base oil, and FMs. Results as follows but I did not list the FM tests because they noted some inconsistencies in the testing plus I didn't have the time to noodle out all the different combinations (base oil vs FMs). It looks to me like the syn base with no FMs performed pretty well and may have outperformed one mineral oil with an organic FM.

Viscosity-
10W40= 277g/kWh
5W30= 254 g/kWh
5W20= 281 gkWh

Base Oil-
Synthetic( ) - 264 g/kWh
Mineral- 277 g/kWh

 

[dnewton3]

Thank you, Jim.

Very good data to show the realities of FE with respect to lubes. I see changes in FE up or down 1-2% total range; that seems believable. I'm sure we can all agree the fact that base stocks and additive packages will push the gain or loss a bit. That makes sense to me.

Another thing to consider is how the FE will be effected by the ratio of power production of the engine, to the relative power consumption of pumping the lube. A turbo-diesel light duty truck running approximately 600 ft-lb of torque really isn't burdened (or assisted) by the relative oil change from one product to another nearly as great as a small engine (say perhaps 1.6L with 120 ft-lb of torque). It's akin to the power consumption when one turns on the A/C compressor. In my 2.5L Fusion, I can distinctly tell when the a/c comes on, and it makes a big difference in operating the engine as far as FE goes. But when running the a/c in my Dmax truck and I can't even tell when the compressor cycles, engine or fuel wise. It makes a BIG difference where the torque peak is, also. My Dmax cruises at 1600rpm at 65mph, righ at peak torque. Hence, the oil vis and base stock change would matter little. A small engine typically peaks above 5000rpm, but cruises at 2000rpm or so, and so the pumping loss (or gain) from a lube change can represent a larger shift in power consumption vs potential power production.

Like I said, this thread was about Delo 10w-30 dino vs Shaeffer 10w-30 semi-syn. Salesrep stated that a "3-5%" improvement would be seen. I call total bunk on that. And further, my apologies in advance for being rude, but when I hear a comment like "The 3%-5% is an average. I achieved 7% and tripled my drain intervals when I switched to Schaeffer's 5w30 full synthetic.", I must call bovine-poo.

I'm not down on Shaeffers, or Amsoil, or TDT, or RL or RP. They are high quality brands that do offer distinct advantages when used appropriately. I myself do indeed use synthetic lubes in some situations. But I cannot, will not and shall not accept gross exaggerations as fact when evidence and logic dictate otherwise, and we owe the membership here a fair and balanced view.

Rant overwith.

The OP (remember him? turfequiptech) would be best served if he ran some large scale tests, compared/contrasted UOA results, and included FE in his analysis.

 

[turfequiptech]

Direct from Schaeffer oil website:
Saves Fuel

What would a 3%-5% fuel savings mean to you? That's the average fuel savings gained from SUPREME 7000 in fleet tests. (Test results available upon request.)

Friction not only causes wear, it also robs you of fuel economy. SUPREME 7000 fights friction in three ways - with para-synthetic base stocks, Micron Moly® and Penetro®.

 

[turfequiptech]

I have been lurking this website long enough to respect the comments made by "dnewton3, jim allen, mola kule , salesrep, and pablo. Schaeffer is confident enough to put it on their website and offer testimonials upon request. They have been around a while they did not stay around by peddling "bovine poo".

I mean no disrespect. As I have also been lurking long enough to know that things must be delicately stated or they will be censored. I was merely trying to get other opinions on the benefit of "semi synthetic" and the Schaeffer ad pack. I have no way of comparing "FE" as the demand of the equipment varies. One day the grass is longer and dry another day it could be shorter and soaked. I just cant do it and honestly I am not concerned with 3-5% way to many variables. I am concerned with whether #711 can be used to reduce inventory and in place of a full synthetic.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: turfequiptech
Schaeffer is confident enough to put it on their website and offer testimonials upon request.


Testimonials or actual test data? Testimonials are used for everything from fake Viagra to some pretty shoddy engine products. I wouldn't think Schaeffer would resort to testimonials.

 

[turfequiptech]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: turfequiptech
Schaeffer is confident enough to put it on their website and offer testimonials upon request.


Testimonials or actual test data? Testimonials are used for everything from fake Viagra to some pretty shoddy engine products. I wouldn't think Schaeffer would resort to testimonials.

Sorry, it does say test results, not testimonials.

 

[dnewton3]

Yes, but it does not clearly define what those test results were, does it? Does is save 1%, 2%, 10%? And, we must known in relation to which opposition. A 50 grade? 40 Grade? Multi-grade?

That's like me stating that I'm taller ...
Taller than whom? Measured by which method? At what age?

OK - I'll accept that Shaeffers "saves fuel". But that is very poorly defined by them on their site. They offer "results available upon request"; I've done just that this morning regarding their 7000 series lubes. Also, I noticed that they claim the oil pumps up from the pan upon start-up "10x faster"! Oh - I've got to see the data on that!

 

[turfequiptech]

I feel most assume, not seeing any test results that the claim is based on other oils being of similar weight and description. Or of a product you would normally use for the given product they are claiming to be better than. Most reasonable people looking at a oil would not assume they are comparing two different weights/viscosities. Likewise when someone makes a claim that they are taller there is usually something else visual in the scenario that implies that you are comparing to. None of this really follows the original question. Thank you for your responses and I hope you post your findings in a new thread when you get them. I would like to see them.

 

[turfequiptech]

Originally Posted By: Ken2
If you continue to change the oil on the same mileage schedule, you will see very little advantage of the Schaeffer. In the long run the parts will be a bit cleaner with a bit less wear. If you change the oil based on the results of oil analysis testing, you'll run the Schaeffer oil longer and save money on oil, filters, labor, as well as reduced wear of the parts. Chevron makes excellent conventional lubes. I've used their stuff for years in industrial applications. Schaeffer simply uses better quality ingredients for better performance as you've found with the hydraulic oil.


Thank you Ken2, I agree and hope to extend my changes by a few hours. If I do not change anything I will just stay with the Chevron.

 

[dnewton3]

I got the replies back from Shaeffer. I was sent two documents; one of dyno tests and one of TRC tests.

Now, let me preface this by saying I understand that websites of products are typically geared towards marketing; they sell product to stay in business. But when claims are made, I want to see proof that convinces me claims are either true or false. Some people cannot even see the forest for the trees; they accept what they are told as "fact". But I want to be able to see the needle on the branch on the limb of the tree in the forest. You get the idea ...

Regarding the dyno testing:
There are certainly fuel economy gains to show, but the entire deck was shuffled heavily before the hands were dealt.
Allow me to be specific.
1) Not one of these "tests" were conducted on the same day. Most of the "before" and "after" tests were anywhere from 1-3 months apart. That means there were significant opportunities for environmental (air temp, humidity, density, etc) differences. NOT ONE OF THESE WAS RUN ON THE SAME DAY.
2) Most of these "tests" were many thousands of miles apart (Some were as low as 6k miles; some as high as 34k miles difference; the average was 18.6k miles between tests).
3) Further, because there was such a huge discrepancy in MONTHs of testing, there is no ability to validate the fuel supply, which they bought locally. One test didn't even use the same fuel types (biodiesel was contrasted to #2 fuel ...)
4) NONE of these tests were performed with ONLY the engine oil as being the variable. In every test, there was manipulation of many variables all at the same time. Engine oil, tranny fluid, diff fluid were all changed. In some of the examples, the tranny and diff fluids were changed to a thinner fluid; that certainly plays into the economy testing, does it not?
5) Also, in all but one example, they used NO fuel treatment in the "BEFORE" test, but the "AFTER" Schaeffer's testing included their brand of diesel fuel treatment, which contains a cetane improver. Cetane improver greatly effects the fuel efficiency of the engine! They certainly stacked the deck here if you ask me. (note: other competing products such as respected brands like PowerService and Stanadyne have multi-point products that claim 6-8% fuel econonmy gains, and that does NOT include any type of lubes changes. I have not validated their claims. But regarding these dyno tests, it is PROBABLE that a large amount of the gains are due to this one fuel treatment product from Schaeffers. After all, if other fuel treatment competitors claim such performance gains, would it no be reasonable to expect similar gains from Schaeffers? Schaeffers website claims their diesel fuel treatment to boost fuel economy by 5% for their summer product and 3% for their winter product.) The addition of the Schaeffers fuel treatment in 11 of the 12 dyno "after" tests likely have a SIGNIFICANT effect on the fuel efficiency results.
6) In every "certification" letter from Dr. Noonan, the final statement acknowledges that the COMBINATION of fuel treatment, engine oil, transmission oil and differential oil changes were made. NOWHERE is there a statement based solely upon engine oil changes.

Regarding the TRC testing:
These tests were done to SAE J1321 Type 2 protocol. Here, they only show “1.9%” (ONE point NINE percent) fuel saved. That is a FAR cry from the “3-5%” as stated on their website for the 7000 series oil. Further, I cannot find any statement as to which grades of lube were compared/contrasted. The SAE test protocol is very specific, but that only governs the methodology. The variables are allowed to be chosen by the tester. Is it possible that they used a 15w-40 dino versus a 5w-30 or 10w-30 semi-syn 7000? Sure it is; we have NO idea because the documentation I have been provided states nothing as to the lube grades that were tested. I wasn't provided the TRC document; I was provided a synposis of the data (a conclusion).


I'd completely agree that when a "total vehicle makeover" exists there are potential savings to be found of 5-8%. I've stated that previously in my other posts here.

BUT IN NO WAY, SHAPE OR FORM DO I SEE ANY PROOF FROM SCHAEFFER THAT A 3-5% FUEL ECONOMY GAIN CAN BE HAD FROM JUST THE ENGINE OIL SWAP ALONE. In fact, I find it a bit disingenuous in that their website states a gain of "3-5%" for the 7000 series oil.
Again, here is the quote taken directly from their site:
"What would a 3%-5% fuel savings mean to you? That's the average fuel savings gained from SUPREME 7000 in fleet tests. (Test results available upon request.)"
And yet the TRC document shows only a 1.9% gain, and we have no idea what lube grades were tested. (NOTE - I've asked but not yet got an answer back.)

I do believe Schaeffers makes fine, quality products. I completely agree that efficiency gains can be found from product swaps.

But I stand by my initial comments. A 7% fuel economy gain from using 5w-30 7000 series alone is total bunk. And so is "3-5%" for that matter, because I have yet to see true "proof" using a solid, verifiable, repeatable testing methodology and protocol. The "real" number is 1.9%, grade unknown. In addition, all this testing was done on OTR trucks and not a passenger car or light-duty diesel truck. The testing may or may not reflect real world changes in that regard; we cannot know because those situation were not addressed.

If you feel that I've been unfair to Schaeffers, then feel free to email them and ask for the results yourself (I was contacted by S. Rober). Don't take my word for it; review the data yourself. Draw your own conclusions .

 

[Jim Allen]

Thanks for the extra effort Dave.

None of what you say surprises me. The manipulation/presentation of data for advertising is a common issue. Often it's done in ignorance, sometimes with malice aforethought. I don't think any company is completely immune to this.

Even personally, we humans are guilty of it. If you shave, get a haircut and put on your best suit for a job interview, when you normally run around lots scruffier, are you misrepresenting yourself? If a company presents it's best data for advertising, are they misrepresenting themselves? I suppose it's a matter of degree in both cases.

I've long since accepted a "normal" level of marketing hype, which is easily decoded with the "bovine scatology detector of knowledge" and a little persistence. If something is important, I try to learn enough to read past at least a couple levels of the normal hype. If the hype levels rise to a egregious level, you gotta figure out why and/or walk away.

 

[salesrep]

So after all this. I can state changing out engine oil only on an 18 wheeler Schaeffers gained 1.9% officially thru the TRC ( about a $25k test). Which would be a savings of anywhere from $500 to $1500 yearly savings depending on the miles traveled and fuel costs. Furthermore we can state thru multiple controlled tests that working with a Schaeffers Representative changing to Schaeffers products Semi's of many different engines and a variety of previous fluids achieved an average of 6.3% fuel economy increase after more than 20 controlled tests....and lowered temperatures in the differentials and trannys by an average of 9.5 F.

 

[A_Harman]

And a 1.9% increase in fuel economy is about as big as API specifications require to get the Energy Conserving label. This amount of savings is more worthwhile to a trucker or fleet owner than it is to the average passenger car driver.

 

[jmo]

dnewton3: If you believe Schaeffer makes quality products and since your so skeptical about the fuel economy claims, why don't you monitor your fuel mileage till your next oil change, run Schaeffer's oil for the next 3 months and monitor your fuel mileage all the while reporting your findings here. Then when someone challenges your integrity over the findings, you will have personal knowledge to rely on.

 

[dnewton3]

Several reasons:

1) Three months is not a good cycle because of many factors such as the fuel supply and environmental conditions (both of which will change between winter and summer), thereby greatly affecting the energy per pound of fuel (I pointed that out in the post above), air density, travel speeds, etc, etc.

2) I do "normal" OCIs; I only run an average of 7k miles a year in my truck, so I don't even get the full benefit of dino fluids, and would NEVER achieve an ROI on more expensive brands. I'd be wasting money on Schaeffers more expensive products when traditional brand name products will protect my engine every bit as well (unless you'd like to fund the experiment

).

3) It wasn't me who made the claim, but you. It's up to you to prove you got 7% better fuel efficiency. I'll believe it when you show me real, credible data. I find it VERY hard to believe that you got a 7% gain, when Schaeffers own data points to 1.9% in the TRC controlled test. About the only way you could have gained 7% by using 5w-30 is if you previously had a really thick fluid in the crankcase (like 140 weight Lucas gear oil with a thickening agent ....

)


Bottom line is this:
** You made a claim of 7% gain, and posted no credible proof. Even if you did see 7%, we have no understanding of the conditions it was under. I highly suspect it was not a "controlled" experiment on your part.
** Schaeffer's own webite is full of marketing hype, and claims 3-5%. Their "tests" of the big-rigs were loaded with total vehicle makeovers that included fuel enhancement in all but one "after Schaeffers" treatments, which grossly affects the results.
** The data in the independent TRC test shows that the oil, by itself, is good for 1.9% in big-rigs and speaks nothing to other applications. I've reviewed the test protocol on this SAE J1321 type II test and it's very well controlled. The test results from this data that Schaeffers presents is credible and believeable in real-world terms.

The OP (turfequiptech) was trying to get information on the difference between 10w-30 Delo and 10w-30 Schaeffers in performance.

Let the rest of the membership review the data as presented and make up their minds.

 

[Jim Allen]

jmo- The thing to keep in mind, and it's been mentioned above, checking mpg the way you and I normally do it is fraught with inaccuracies on many levels.

 

[turfequiptech]

The TRC test is very accurate, I would assume. Based on the cost. It must be in a controlled environment.What other oil companies show a 1.9% improvement on this test?
So, if the way we measure mpg is "fraught with inaccuracies on many levels" and you and "dnewton3" are so experienced and accurate. Why did you hijack the thread and turn it into something else? when you knew already that 7% was probably an inaccurate reading.
I had a legit question, for a legit business, my question is why we have forums to begin with. I even stated I was not concerned about fuel economy, because it was to hard to track at the 3-5% level for my operation. The best answer I got was from ken2. You and dnewton3 seem to know quite a bit, wish you would have applied it more to the original question and put the fuel economy debate on a new thread.
How much oil does a ZTR hold anyway? I would change it every year for the less than ten dollars. My Kubota is very expensive and I cannot buy another one , so I will change the oil every year.

 

[dnewton3]

Here was your original question:
"So my question is : is the synthetic blend in the Schaeffers an advantage over the Chevron non synthetic blend?"
Sir, that is a pretty open question, because you do not well define the term "advantage". So the topic became open to many issues. The perceived "advantage" could be wear reduction, cleanliness, fuel efficiency, perceived noise reduction, TBN retention, etc. Hence, the many different replies you got.

"Why did you hijack the thread and turn it into something else? when you knew already that 7% was probably an inaccurate reading." I cannot speak for Jim, but I will defend him, and we didn't hijack anything. I was not either of the first two people to bring up the fuel economy issue (salesrep, then jmo). I did, however, chime in with factual basis and solid research to dispell (what I have proved to be) total bunk when it comes to engine oil fuel efficiency claims. It's my nature; I want people to have good, solid, reliable facts to make decent decisions with. Good decisisons cannot come from hype, mythology and rhetoric.

As for your original quest, I said this:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
... Sounds like you have a wide range and quantity of equipment to cover. You are in a position, apparently, to be able to get some UOAs. I'd do that. Try the Delo; run UOAs. Try the Shaeffer's; run some UOAs. Then compare and contrast the two. Why let guesses get in the way of facts? Why not tell us how it went, rather than ask us what we think?

... Both of these brands will do a great job. The question is this: Which fluid will best fit into your maintenance plan and provide the highest return on your investment while providing an suitable sustained level of protection against adverse events?

... Run several UOAs of each brand and type fluid. Then sit down and do a fiscal analysis. THAT will tell you which one to use.

... READ MY SIGNATURE LINE and you'll begin to understand what I'm talking about.



When you posted your question, you were new to this site, so I tried to give you some solid advice on the methodology of how to make your own decision. My apologies for trying to keep the realities of a proper lubricant maintenance program in play.