PQIA tests ten 5W-20s - one gets an Advisory

[Tom NJ]

Originally Posted By: 77GrandPrix
I understand Tom. My point is that Ashland wrote the letter to you and not directly to the public. I don't feel that Thom with Ashland referenced the manufacture date to highlight the fact that the oil is three years old. Do you?


Actually he wrote the letter to Tom Glenn (not me).

I have no idea what Thom Smith had in mind in mentioning the age of the oil. My interpretation was that he was just providing background information, but IF his intent was to excuse the Noack results, it doesn't.

Tom NJ

 

[nepadriver]

Too many T(h)om's.........and too much NOACK.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: nepadriver
What goes around comes around...

BTW Garak, love the name. Just started Netflix marathon of ds9, excellent series.

He he. In fairness to Ashland, I love MaxLife and used a lot of it and would continue to do so in the future. Their Mobil bashing never scared me away from Mobil, and this test won't scare me away from MaxLife. But, I wonder how Ashland would enjoy all of XOM's marketing coming down on them like a ton of bricks.

They could grab Castrol's shower of sludge commercials and say that BP was talking about Valvoline when they made them.

 

[buster]

I like Valvoline, but this is their second PQIA advisory. I believe one of their ATF's had an issue, although it may have been further clarified by Thom Smith.

I'm a bit disappointed in Valvoline's QC. I'd use their products with confidence, but I'm lowering them on my trustworthy list.

 

[Drew99GT]

Buster's back! yea, I'm a bit leary of Valvoline now. In fact, having Maxlife ATF in my mom's Impala is actually giving me nightmares now.

 

[ChrisJH]

Originally Posted By: buster
I like Valvoline, but this is their second PQIA advisory. I believe one of their ATF's had an issue, although it may have been further clarified by Thom Smith.

I'm a bit disappointed in Valvoline's QC. I'd use their products with confidence, but I'm lowering them on my trustworthy list.

What was the advisory on their ATF?

 

[AP9]

The Maxlife had a 100°C viscosity that was too low for Dexron/Mercon standard. The advisory was withdrawn when Ashland stated that the reason the viscosity spec'd minimum 6.8 cSt was because it would quickly shear down, and that Maxlife had very little shear when in service.

http://www.pqiamerica.com/ATFdecember2012/valvolinemaxATF.htm

I have my own concerns about Maxlife that are unrelated; namely, compatibility with Mercon V.

 

[buster]

^ thanks, that was it. That's somewhat understandable.

I trust PQIA's findings. It was most likely a QC issue. Let's face it, companies have QC processes.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: buster
It was most likely a QC issue. Let's face it, companies have QC processes.

Plus, we're also nuts here. We'll have one thread where someone is insisting upon using the SJ oil on their shelf (with NOACK nowhere near modern standards), right above another thread slamming Valvoline for butting against the current volatility limits.

 

[ChrisJH]

Originally Posted By: AP9
The Maxlife had a 100°C viscosity that was too low for Dexron/Mercon standard. The advisory was withdrawn when Ashland stated that the reason the viscosity spec'd minimum 6.8 cSt was because it would quickly shear down, and that Maxlife had very little shear when in service.

http://www.pqiamerica.com/ATFdecember2012/valvolinemaxATF.htm

I have my own concerns about Maxlife that are unrelated; namely, compatibility with Mercon V.


Interesting, thanks.

I was looking at using this in my 03 TL that is currently in the midst of a 3x3 with Z1. Im not sure if the Dex/Merc advisory applies in that case.

I happen to have a couple pretty old gallon jugs (probably from 2010 or 2011) and just picked up 2 brand new jugs. All say they are rated for Z1, only the new ones say "fully synthetic" on the front (the older ones say it on the back only)

 

[901Memphis]

You can do better.

http://www.pqiamerica.com/Nov2013/Valvolinenextgen.htm

Just go with the PYB

http://www.pqiamerica.com/Nov2013/5W20consolidateddec30.html

 

[aquariuscsm]

Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
You can do better.

http://www.pqiamerica.com/Nov2013/Valvolinenextgen.htm

Just go with the PYB

http://www.pqiamerica.com/Nov2013/5W20consolidateddec30.html


It`s weird. I was playing around with the different oils on the site just now and the older PYB test (5W30) shows no moly and the usual 13. something noack. Wonder how accurate and consistent these tests and/or oil blending really is? Or do oil formulas constantly get changed and tweaked on a regular basis?

http://www.pqiamerica.com/pennzoillabelrevnew.htm

 

[Danh]

Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
You can do better.

http://www.pqiamerica.com/Nov2013/Valvolinenextgen.htm

Just go with the PYB

http://www.pqiamerica.com/Nov2013/5W20consolidateddec30.html


It`s weird. I was playing around with the different oils on the site just now and the older PYB test (5W30) shows no moly and the usual 13. something noack. Wonder how accurate and consistent these tests and/or oil blending really is? Or do oil formulas constantly get changed and tweaked on a regular basis?

http://www.pqiamerica.com/pennzoillabelrevnew.htm


PQIA is a well-established organization and its testing regimen should produce reliable results.

Two things here:
1) manufacturers do tweak formulations and may or may not revise PDSs to reflect the change. Additives like molybdenum can be increased or lowered without announcing it to the general public.

2) in this specific PQIA test, really low Noack was found on both PYB and QSGB, which are sister products, making a lab error seem less likely. But these Noack figures are even lower than that for the recently-reformulated Platinum, which is considerably higher in Pennzoil's product hierarchy. Was this a factory fill error? Was SOPUS making use of excess GTL stocks? Is this truly a new formulation that will endure despite being "better" than Platinum in this aspect? As a new PDS for PYB hasn't been issued, we're all in the dark and can't be sure we know what's in the bottle on the shelf.

 

[The_Eric]

Also the link posted by aquariuscsm is for the SM version, not the current SN one.

 

[jorton]

Originally Posted By: Rand
Alot of the 5w20's are right there at 14-15%

the PYB seems to be wrong, not physically possible with a conv. 5w20.

the valvoline seems troubling they were way off at 18+

definitely wouldnt want to run one of these in a turbo DI car.

There is a lot of dialog on NOAK numbers. What does 15% mean? When I run a high NOAK number oil in my cars should I see oil level on the dip stick drop ? Should pcv service life be shortened ? That's important because the pcv on my Focus is not accessable w/o removing the intake manifold.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: jorton
When I run a high NOAK number oil in my cars should I see oil level on the dip stick drop ? Should pcv service life be shortened ?

The first issue won't even be noticeable. The second, well, I would think that's possible, but I don't know how much of an issue it would be. I'd be more concerned about ensuring the PCV is operating correctly, as opposed to service life being shortened.

 

[jorton]

OK. Then what's the problem with a 15% NOAK oil?

 

[Garak]

Well, if it's out of proper API/ILSAC specification, then it's out of specification, and that's an issue in its own right. A little high probably isn't a big deal, just like with phosphorous, or slight viscosity changes. But, if someone is paying for SN/GF-5 and winds up with something that is more along the lines of an SF lube, they might not appreciate that.

 

[FetchFar]

Originally Posted By: jorton
OK. Then what's the problem with a 15% NOAK oil?


There is a reason that the tough MB 229.5 spec requires <10% and dexos1 <12% NOACK. Its a line in the sand to oil formulators to get everybody to use a decent base oil stock. Concerns about extra piston deposits, clogged PCV valves, etc., are real concerns in real engines.

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: FetchFar
Originally Posted By: jorton
OK. Then what's the problem with a 15% NOAK oil?


There is a reason that the tough MB 229.5 spec requires div>


This is really a incomplete statement. Some conventional PCMO's have NOACK values below 6%. You have a lot to learn. It would be a great benefit if you would learn a bit before making such absolute statements.