Is there an easy way to pick a good motor oil ?

[camrydriver111]

Originally Posted By: 69GTX
Originally Posted By: 69GTX
....This Lubrizol comparison tool helps.
https://www.lubrizol.com/apps/relperftool/pc.html....


OK. It just occurred to me I might be using that Lubrizol chart backwards. Is a "10" rating the most wear or the least wear? I assumed that less of all those harmful effects was the best (ie 0). The "better" A3/B3 spec is inside the chart of the A1/B1. I assumed that was better...so a lower number was better. Right or wrong?


Higher is better.

 

[camrydriver111]

Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
I go by my sense of smell.


I was a bit skeptical by the smell test.

However, I tried smelling the oil before and after my OCI, and I can definitely smell the gasoline in my used oil.

The human nose is very sensitive so I imagine with experience you could become really in-tune with your car by smelling the oil.

 

[SR5]

Originally Posted By: camrydriver111
Originally Posted By: 69GTX
Originally Posted By: 69GTX
....This Lubrizol comparison tool helps.
https://www.lubrizol.com/apps/relperftool/pc.html....


OK. It just occurred to me I might be using that Lubrizol chart backwards. Is a "10" rating the most wear or the least wear? I assumed that less of all those harmful effects was the best (ie 0). The "better" A3/B3 spec is inside the chart of the A1/B1. I assumed that was better...so a lower number was better. Right or wrong?


Higher is better.


Yes, bigger is better.

The newer MB 229.5 oil is better than the older MB229.3 oil. The Ford M2C913 standard is quite weak, but from memory it was similar or even better than API SN, which was on the Lubrizol chart before but has since been removed.

The MB 229.5 standard is very good, and if I want a top oil then, I buy this. But you often have to pay top dollar.
The MB 229.3 standard is still fine, in fact a little better than A3/B4.

So if I need an A3/B4 oil, and one is marked A3/B4 only, and the other is marked A3/B4 plus MB229.3, then I know the second oil with the MB 229.3 should be a better oil. If they are both the same price, then job done. Even is the standard is out of date, it can still be used as a tool to rank oils at the shop.

 

[69GTX]

Originally Posted By: SR5


The newer MB 229.5 oil is better than the older MB229.3 oil. The Ford M2C913 standard is quite weak, but from memory it was similar or even better than API SN, which was on the Lubrizol chart before but has since been removed.

The MB 229.5 standard is very good, and if I want a top oil then, I buy this. But you often have to pay top dollar.
The MB 229.3 standard is still fine, in fact a little better than A3/B4.

So if I need an A3/B4 oil, and one is marked A3/B4 only, and the other is marked A3/B4 plus MB229.3, then I know the second oil with the MB 229.3 should be a better oil. If they are both the same price, then job done. Even is the standard is out of date, it can still be used as a tool to rank oils at the shop.



Thanks. Figures I had it backwards...lol. I got snookered by the "inferior" A1/B1 being "outside" the chart of A3/B3....therefore it only made sense that a smaller number was better. It all went south from there. It makes no sense that the A1/B1 spec ranks higher than A3/B3...but that's what Lubrizol says. At least now I understand that MB 229.5 is a great spec and Ford's M2C913-A is terrible. That all makes sense now.

 

[SR5]

Originally Posted By: 69GTX
Originally Posted By: SR5


The newer MB 229.5 oil is better than the older MB229.3 oil. The Ford M2C913 standard is quite weak, but from memory it was similar or even better than API SN, which was on the Lubrizol chart before but has since been removed.

The MB 229.5 standard is very good, and if I want a top oil then, I buy this. But you often have to pay top dollar.
The MB 229.3 standard is still fine, in fact a little better than A3/B4.

So if I need an A3/B4 oil, and one is marked A3/B4 only, and the other is marked A3/B4 plus MB229.3, then I know the second oil with the MB 229.3 should be a better oil. If they are both the same price, then job done. Even is the standard is out of date, it can still be used as a tool to rank oils at the shop.



Thanks. Figures I had it backwards...lol. I got snookered by the "inferior" A1/B1 being "outside" the chart of A3/B3....therefore it only made sense that a smaller number was better. It all went south from there. It makes no sense that the A1/B1 spec ranks higher than A3/B3...but that's what Lubrizol says. At least now I understand that MB 229.5 is a great spec and Ford's M2C913-A is terrible. That all makes sense now.


Hey 69GTX,

Yes I have a few issues with the Lubzizol comparison tool as the A1/B1 with a HTHS of 2.6 or more, ranks the same for wear as A3/B3 with a HTHS of 3.5 or more.

But, if you look at the actual ACEA sequences, the A1/B1 has a lower cam wear requirement than the A3/B3.
http://www.acea.be/uploads/publications/2012_ACEA_Oil_Sequences.pdf

So in the end, I assume the Lubrizol people know what they are doing. Don't forget the table to the right, it gives HTHS and Sulphated Ash etc.

As far as I'm concerned if I want ACEA oils, I go A3/B4 for protection or A5/B5 for fuel economy. Simple.
You live in North America, maybe easier to focus on the Ford and Dexos standards.

Have Fun !!

 

[SR5]

From a recent thread on semi-synthetic oils

Originally Posted By: bvance554
Quaker State Enhanced Durability. Because its the cheapest Dexos approved oil at WM.

 

[HM12460]

Selection of an API rated SN and ILSAC GF-5 any brand, that meets the mfr. specs,
and you're on the right track.

 

[Branson304]

I've still not made up my mind on one oil. I've used Mobil 1, Pennzoil Platinum, Valvoline MaxLife, SynPower, Castrol Edge, Motorcraft, the list goes on. All are excellent oils. You can't go wrong with any name brand oil changed at the appropriate intervals. It'll all come down to your vehicle, driving conditions & manufacturer recommendation.

 

[holdorf333]

Go to WM, find whichever one says "XwXX" that you're looking for, and buy it.

 

[fdcg27]

Any oil that meets the appropriate specification for your car in something close to the recommended grade will be a good oil.
There are significantly different additive packages, but they're mostly just different routes to the same end.
You only really see a difference in oil performance in UOAs of oils run on drain intervals exceeding those recommended by the vehicle manufacturer.
Remember that UOAs are mainly about how well the oil itself holds up and are not a good tool to use in determining relative wear performance.
Select any name brand oil on the shelf that meets the required specification for your engine. Everything from basic API to advanced Euro can be found at Walmart for reasonable prices and if you want to chase deals and do MIRs, then good oils meeting these specs can be had dirt cheap.
Avoid the trap of thinking that your use of your car is somehow severe service and that you therefore should obsess about oil choice and drain intervals.
It's easier to select a good oil than it is to find a bad one.

 

[camrydriver111]

Originally Posted By: holdorf333
Go to WM, find whichever one says "XwXX" that you're looking for, and buy it.


I think we are seeing on BITOG that it may not be that easy. It seems like oil specs are made to benefit oil manufacturers to make cheap oil and car manufacturers to meet fuel economy standards but not consumers to prevent wear.

You need to find out what each oil spec means and what kind of lubrication requirements the oil needs to pass to meet those specs. Then you need to determine whether those lubrication requirements are right for your car.

I have been registered on BITOG for a year now, and I think I am only beginning to understand oil, and only beginning to understand the process one needs to go through to choose a good oil.

 

[Gwhaley262]

Personally I like mine pretty hoppy. Oh wait wrong topic.

 

[Yah-Tah-Hey]

You''ll never find it on BITOG. Take Holdorf's advice.I haven't had a problem with Mobil I since I started using it around 1978 but don't consider that as a suggestion.Head for WM. Only thing, inspect any jug or bottle you pick. That goes for filters too.

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted By: camrydriver111
Originally Posted By: holdorf333
Go to WM, find whichever one says "XwXX" that you're looking for, and buy it.


I think we are seeing on BITOG that it may not be that easy. It seems like oil specs are made to benefit oil manufacturers to make cheap oil and car manufacturers to meet fuel economy standards but not consumers to prevent wear.

You need to find out what each oil spec means and what kind of lubrication requirements the oil needs to pass to meet those specs. Then you need to determine whether those lubrication requirements are right for your car.

I have been registered on BITOG for a year now, and I think I am only beginning to understand oil, and only beginning to understand the process one needs to go through to choose a good oil.


You are falling into the same trap that many critically thinking new member do.
You read lots of stories of potential horrors and ignore the evidence all around you.
There is nothing to indicate that engine wear has been a problem for some decades. Engines on modern oils will eventually suffer some catastrophic failure through no fault of the oil used, although very few are ever run to that point, but they don't wear out, aside from a few cases of grossly bad design that no oil can fix.
You see cars every day run on nothing more than jobber bulk oil and e-core filters that last as long as those carefully maintained on the BITOG flavor of the month oil and filter.
If there is a difference, I'd say it's more a matter of deposit control than wear, but even then, an engine can live a long life with an accumulation of debris that would make most of us faint before we could even place our Kreen order.
Consider the rest of the car.
For safety, you must maintain brakes and tires.
How many even here compromise on these?
What about the transmission?
Decent junkyard engines are easy to find, rebuilds are usually pretty cheap and even crate motors can be quite reasonable.
None of the above are true for an automatic transmission and yet there are far more members obsessing about motor oil than ATF, as evidenced by the relative number of viewers, topics and posts in each respective forum.
There is far more to vehicle maintenance than the engine.
One might be better served by settling on a decent oil and then considering everything else that's more likely to wear out or break.
This is how you get to 200K and beyond without any major expense.

 

[widman]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: CELICA_XX
I saw this PDF a few days ago:

http://www.widman.biz/uploads/Modern_Car_Oil_Selection_Guide.pdf

While I respect our friend Widman, this guide completely misses the whole mfg spec aspect which is becoming more and more important with newer cars.


That is written in the light of simplifying things for people who are totally confused by all the marketing names and ingredients, considering the majority of the works population. Yes, it might be nice to look for a specific manufacturer's spec, but that method will work and get you several hundred thousand miles without problems.

And the fact is that many countries either have too many restrictions on oil imports that those boutique oils are not available. In many cases I've seen that the standard top-quality will easily pass the manufacturers tests, but for $50,000 to $150,000 every couple of years, which for any limited brand is not feasible. ie: we pay the fees to MACK and send samples to them every two years to put our name on their list. There is nothing in it specifically for Mack. It is just a top additive in a top base oil.