Havoline DS 5w-30, ARX Rinse, 2316mi...LS1

[Mr_Incredible]

Thin oil test in LS1, Test 1.

Miles on oil.....3,342|2316
Miles on unit...90,068|94343

Element....M1TrSUV...HavDS...uavg
alum..........3..2..4
chromium....1..0..1
iron.........19..3..15
copper......4..2..34
lead..........0..0..7
tin............0..0..2
moly..........6..142..60
nickel........1..0..1
mang.........1..0..2
silver.........0..0..0
titanium......0..0..0
potassium....3..0..1
boron.........32..28..68
silicon.........8..4..6
sodium.......3..1..6
calcium.....2503..1628..2307
magnes.......460..44..293
phosph......1077..547..737
zinc........1299..689..880
barium......0...0...0

Visc (65-78)..73.7,,,55.8
Flash >375...445...435
Fuel Antifreeze..0..0
Water...0..0
Insolubles.... 0.5%... 0.2%

Lab Remarks: Wear is virtually non-existant in this sample. We've seen more wear metals in a virgin oil sample than we found here. Your note implied that this was a rinse phase so we understand the short oil run. Try 4,000 miles for the next sample. Wear will increase but it should read close to universal averages, as that is the mileage upon which the averages are based. The viscosity of the sample was slightly low but isn't a problem and no harmful contaminants wer found. At 94,343 miles we have no problems to report.

My remarks: The previous oil that was used for the ARX treatment was Super Tech 10w-30. The oil before that (UOA numbers listed above) was M1 TrSUV 5w-40. This oil was Havoline Deposit Shield 5w-30, chosen for it's low viscosity in the 5w-30 population. Normal viscosity is 59.4 and thinned to 55.8.

The intent was to have a low viscosity oil to splash around and clean off anything the ARX had disolved and to test the Thinner-Is-Better idea. The oil was not babied while in use. There was city and highway miles, a heaping handful of WOT runs, a lot of two-lane WOT passing of slower cars (I love that in the Z28), and a run up to 112mph. The current fill is Castrol Syntec 5w-30, which is a slightly lower viscosity.

The common thought is that LS1's are supposed to really love a thicker oil, but I don't think it's the thickness as much as the oil itself (GC comes to mind). It looks to me like LS1's don't mind a thinner oil at all.

 

[jeepman]

I gotta say these numbers are very impressive even for such a short OCI. Since we have had very little info on the Havoline DS formula, this is promising...

 

[addyguy]

I can't believe there hasn't been more commentary on this UOA! Its the first Havoline Deposit sheild UOA on the board - thats gotta count for something!

I think it looks great, and as jeepman said, DS shows a lot of promise.....look at those iron and copper numbers - on an LS1!

 

[Drew99GT]

I'm impressed! The viscosity is rock solid as it's 9.7 Cst to start with. Very low wear for an LS1.

 

[jeepman]

In another thread, someone said they got an email back from Texaco claiming a new add pack with enhanced viscosity improvers. It's starting to look like this may have some merit to it. I look forward to buster's upcoming UOA and my own 2 UOA's to see if the DS is the real deal.

I agree with addyguy, I can't believe that after 6 months of waiting for a UOA on this oil, this isn't the busiest thread on the board. Everyone wanted to imply that Texaco was cheapening the formula due to the lower Moly numbers in the VOA's, but now no comments on what looks to be a great quality dino?

 

[buster]

I'd like to see another report with this oil/engine. Numbers are almost to good to be true!

 

[Drew99GT]

I get 57.6 as the conversion from the listed 9.7 Cst on the Havoline data sheets, to SUS. So it went from 57 to roughly 56 SUS.

 

[ThirdeYe]

Gotta love Havoline DS! Look at how much lower the iron is... if I were you, I wouldn't bother going back to the Mobil 1. Even at the same mileage with the Havoline as the M1, I bet your iron would be a lot lower.

 

[Mr_Incredible]

Quote:

---

Gotta love Havoline DS! Look at how much lower the iron is... if I were you, I wouldn't bother going back to the Mobil 1. Even at the same mileage with the Havoline as the M1, I bet your iron would be a lot lower.

---

Ha! I'm over M1 like I'm over Amsoil and my first two wives! Ne'r the twain should meet again...

I'm not sure how long it will be before I get around to DS again. I've got three changes of GC and four changes of old and new PP to go through first. That, plus the Syntec I have in it now. The good luck I got with the DS led me to try the lowest visc 30w on the list. I'll go a full 4k with it before I get it tested. I don't usually go over 4k anyway any more since I don't mind (read enjoy) changing oil. More the better if I could do it with a sub-$3 oil like DS.

 

[DINO_NO]

Mobil 1 constantly showes higher iron wear, anyone else notice this trend with any other Mobil 1 reports?

 

[ThirdeYe]

-raises hand- but most people look at me like i'm full of it when I say it

 

[Mystic]

I am starting to get really tired of these new synthetic oils that flow in the cold apparently roughly the same as concentional motor oil and some people here have reported more than once that you can actually get less wear with a conventional motor oil (according to UOAs that have been done). If you can get less wear with a conventional oil and the conventional will flow in the cold about the same as a synthetic, why even use a synthetic?

I am thinking about using conventional motor oil most of the year. But in the wintertime it would still be nice to use a synthetic.