Update: $27.97 for 5qt. jug of Castrol Edge Titanium 5w-30 @ local walmart...many times the manufacture will not honor rebates if you purchase at large box stores, but automotive parts retailers will match walmarts price, then you can participate in the manufactures rebate...I'm sure this is not new info...just say'n!
UOA of Castrol Edge with Titanium 5w-30
- Thread starter jb2trbof150
- Start date
- Status
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: jb2trbof150
Oil life monitor showed 51%. So you changed a synthetic oil with 50% of the lifecycle left in the OCI that is predicated on a "normal" oil being used.
Ragged edge to me is running oil to the point that you don't know if the oil is protecting your engine like it should. I changed the oil and observed the findings, I didn't observe the findings and change the oil based on those results. I plan on staying with 5000 mile intervals based on the info gathered through this web site, and others.
So you intend to continue to OCI with 50% of the lube life left, even though the IOLM and the UOA are telling you otherwise. You have no intent to follow the OLM or the UOA, and will OCI based upon some (outdated) preconcieved notion of what "ragged" is. And you are selectively picking out information from "this web site, and others" if you think 5k mile synthetic OCIs are a great idea when the IOLM tells you you're only 50% of the way there. What you are doing is finding people with like mindsets, and following their lead, because it fits into your preconcieved notion of what "right" is in regard to "ragged" oil. You are not letting the IOLM nor the data speak to you. You have not shown any evidence that you've set reasonable condemnation levels for the oil parameters, and rather have predetermined a grossly conservative OCI based upon other opinions similar to your own.
Great and Fantasic are based on the results observed; increased fuel economy I cannot agree or disagree here; wasn't part of your report, but it's not uncommon to gain a bit of efficiency as break-in subsides; also your fuel dilution went down, meaning less fuel was "wasted" in the crankcase, declining wear metals Again, break-in subsiding should not be credited to the lube choice. Also, you cannot fairly compare/contrast singular UOAs and announce that one lube is "better" than another; not a statistically sound conclusion., high TBN, stable viscosity I would not define "stable" as going from a 30 grade to 20 grade in only 5k miles with no dilution, and value for dollar invested. I understand that some of those values can be affected by fuel dilution, and the test showed low dilution numbers compared with others results. I guess my satisfaction comes from all of these results combined. ....in my opinion. I would counter with the fact that you are seeing what you want to see, versus reality. I do not doubt that you are satisfied; you've manipulated the bar so that the end justifies the means.
Now, if you have the intent to run 10 consequtive OCI/UOA events at 5k mile intervals, so that you develop a steady data stream, and use that as a basis for an exeriment, ultimately with the inent of contrasting that performance to some other (significantly different) brand/grade of oil, I would see the notion behind it. If you tell me "My plan is to lay out a solid, well-controlled trend line so that I can prove/disprove that some other lube is or is not "better" in my application", then I could see the logic to it. If you showed unbiased observation without unfair conclusions, I would understand it.
Oil life monitor showed 51%. So you changed a synthetic oil with 50% of the lifecycle left in the OCI that is predicated on a "normal" oil being used.
Ragged edge to me is running oil to the point that you don't know if the oil is protecting your engine like it should. I changed the oil and observed the findings, I didn't observe the findings and change the oil based on those results. I plan on staying with 5000 mile intervals based on the info gathered through this web site, and others.
So you intend to continue to OCI with 50% of the lube life left, even though the IOLM and the UOA are telling you otherwise. You have no intent to follow the OLM or the UOA, and will OCI based upon some (outdated) preconcieved notion of what "ragged" is. And you are selectively picking out information from "this web site, and others" if you think 5k mile synthetic OCIs are a great idea when the IOLM tells you you're only 50% of the way there. What you are doing is finding people with like mindsets, and following their lead, because it fits into your preconcieved notion of what "right" is in regard to "ragged" oil. You are not letting the IOLM nor the data speak to you. You have not shown any evidence that you've set reasonable condemnation levels for the oil parameters, and rather have predetermined a grossly conservative OCI based upon other opinions similar to your own.
Great and Fantasic are based on the results observed; increased fuel economy I cannot agree or disagree here; wasn't part of your report, but it's not uncommon to gain a bit of efficiency as break-in subsides; also your fuel dilution went down, meaning less fuel was "wasted" in the crankcase, declining wear metals Again, break-in subsiding should not be credited to the lube choice. Also, you cannot fairly compare/contrast singular UOAs and announce that one lube is "better" than another; not a statistically sound conclusion., high TBN, stable viscosity I would not define "stable" as going from a 30 grade to 20 grade in only 5k miles with no dilution, and value for dollar invested. I understand that some of those values can be affected by fuel dilution, and the test showed low dilution numbers compared with others results. I guess my satisfaction comes from all of these results combined. ....in my opinion. I would counter with the fact that you are seeing what you want to see, versus reality. I do not doubt that you are satisfied; you've manipulated the bar so that the end justifies the means.
Now, if you have the intent to run 10 consequtive OCI/UOA events at 5k mile intervals, so that you develop a steady data stream, and use that as a basis for an exeriment, ultimately with the inent of contrasting that performance to some other (significantly different) brand/grade of oil, I would see the notion behind it. If you tell me "My plan is to lay out a solid, well-controlled trend line so that I can prove/disprove that some other lube is or is not "better" in my application", then I could see the logic to it. If you showed unbiased observation without unfair conclusions, I would understand it.
Last edited:
WOW guy relax!!!the IOLM on the MC evaluation also showed approx. 50% at the same mileage, but a TBN of 2, therefore, I doubt the reliability of the OLM. I'm making the payment on the truck, so how about I change the oil when I see fit! I've presented the data to maybe help someone else make a decision on the oil they may use. I have nothing to gain from falsley trying to sway any opinions on this lube, just expressing my opinions on the results that I am observing. Seems like your all "worked up": RELAX!!!!!!!
Tribology is a science; interpretaton of data must disallow wild extrapolation. Many a professional will (rightly) try to keep the science and kick 21 century emotion to the curb.
-
P.: turbof: May wish to get the sticking !!!!!! key fixed on you device. I used to get excited about oil, then it comes back and kicks my tokhes
-
P.: turbof: May wish to get the sticking !!!!!! key fixed on you device. I used to get excited about oil, then it comes back and kicks my tokhes
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: jb2trbof150
WOW guy relax!!!the IOLM on the MC evaluation also showed approx. 50% at the same mileage, but a TBN of 2, therefore, I doubt the reliability of the OLM. I'm making the payment on the truck, so how about I change the oil when I see fit! I've presented the data to maybe help someone else make a decision on the oil they may use. I have nothing to gain from falsley trying to sway any opinions on this lube, just expressing my opinions on the results that I am observing. Seems like your all "worked up": RELAX!!!!!!!
There maybe nothing wrong with the OLM it has been discussed before two things are flawed in your assumption the first your engine had a quite of bit of contamination from break in and the second is TBN depletion is not a linear so do not assume because you made it XXXX miles and your TBN is XX you can only go XXXX miles before it is depleted. It is just not the case. Quite frankly after having a UOA done with some harsh operating conditions and a 7.1K OCI from 2.29 a quart conventional oil although different engines, I would be very disappointed in a synthetics performance if it was like this. But at least you got it on sale.
WOW guy relax!!!the IOLM on the MC evaluation also showed approx. 50% at the same mileage, but a TBN of 2, therefore, I doubt the reliability of the OLM. I'm making the payment on the truck, so how about I change the oil when I see fit! I've presented the data to maybe help someone else make a decision on the oil they may use. I have nothing to gain from falsley trying to sway any opinions on this lube, just expressing my opinions on the results that I am observing. Seems like your all "worked up": RELAX!!!!!!!
There maybe nothing wrong with the OLM it has been discussed before two things are flawed in your assumption the first your engine had a quite of bit of contamination from break in and the second is TBN depletion is not a linear so do not assume because you made it XXXX miles and your TBN is XX you can only go XXXX miles before it is depleted. It is just not the case. Quite frankly after having a UOA done with some harsh operating conditions and a 7.1K OCI from 2.29 a quart conventional oil although different engines, I would be very disappointed in a synthetics performance if it was like this. But at least you got it on sale.
"Wild Extrapolation", and "21 Century Emotion", Wow!!!!!Easy guys!!!!
Disappointed, huh?...check out the other ecoboost UOAs.
The ecoboost 3.5 just doesn't have many comparables yet, but Blackstone test reveal 3 categories, wear being similar. Miles, sus vis @210F, cst vis. A 100C, and TBN...1. MC semisyn 4629 miles, 50.3, 7.36, 2.0...2. Castrol edge 4909 mile, 55.9, 9.03, 3.9...3.MC semisyn 5077 miles, 48.2, 6.73, ?...4. Kendall FS 5728 miles, 51.5, 7.74, 1.5...Penn. Ultra 4906 miles, 56.3, 9.15, 2.4...which one looks like better results? I know, I know, not very scientific, right?
Originally Posted By: jb2trbof150
Disappointed, huh?...check out the other ecoboost UOAs.
Originally Posted By: jb2trbof150
The ecoboost 3.5 just doesn't have many comparables yet, but Blackstone test reveal 3 categories, wear being similar. Miles, sus vis @210F, cst vis. A 100C, and TBN...1. MC semisyn 4629 miles, 50.3, 7.36, 2.0...2. Castrol edge 4909 mile, 55.9, 9.03, 3.9...3.MC semisyn 5077 miles, 48.2, 6.73, ?...4. Kendall FS 5728 miles, 51.5, 7.74, 1.5...Penn. Ultra 4906 miles, 56.3, 9.15, 2.4...which one looks like better results? I know, I know, not very scientific, right?
I would say it didn't do any better or worse than my Kendall UOA. I had almost 1k more miles on it and a different driving pattern so fuel dilution was higher causing a viscosity drop and that has nothing to do the oils performance itself- it can't help the fuel dilution. More fuel = lower TBN & viscosity. Your missing the fuel dilution in that comparison which is a very big factor.
Also alot of the other ecoboost UOA are also young engines with less than 15,000 miles on it. Of course the wear metals are going to be high due to break in, no matter what oil you used. After the 3rd OCI wear metals drop off drastically in this engine after comparing my uoa record and yours.
If the wear is all very similar, your post tells me it does not matter which lube you use.
Disappointed, huh?...check out the other ecoboost UOAs.
Originally Posted By: jb2trbof150
The ecoboost 3.5 just doesn't have many comparables yet, but Blackstone test reveal 3 categories, wear being similar. Miles, sus vis @210F, cst vis. A 100C, and TBN...1. MC semisyn 4629 miles, 50.3, 7.36, 2.0...2. Castrol edge 4909 mile, 55.9, 9.03, 3.9...3.MC semisyn 5077 miles, 48.2, 6.73, ?...4. Kendall FS 5728 miles, 51.5, 7.74, 1.5...Penn. Ultra 4906 miles, 56.3, 9.15, 2.4...which one looks like better results? I know, I know, not very scientific, right?
I would say it didn't do any better or worse than my Kendall UOA. I had almost 1k more miles on it and a different driving pattern so fuel dilution was higher causing a viscosity drop and that has nothing to do the oils performance itself- it can't help the fuel dilution. More fuel = lower TBN & viscosity. Your missing the fuel dilution in that comparison which is a very big factor.
Also alot of the other ecoboost UOA are also young engines with less than 15,000 miles on it. Of course the wear metals are going to be high due to break in, no matter what oil you used. After the 3rd OCI wear metals drop off drastically in this engine after comparing my uoa record and yours.
If the wear is all very similar, your post tells me it does not matter which lube you use.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: jb2trbof150
"Wild Extrapolation", and "21 Century Emotion", Wow!!!!!Easy guys!!!!
If the wear is all very similar, the results say it does not matter which lube you use. This is what the guys have been trying to say and this oil has not delivered wear results that are superior, base on miles and other factors like fuel dilution, when compared to the other UOAs. They're just being realistic about the UOA and the data. These engines are to new yet to be saying which oil is best, fantastic, superior, or great just yet. Hopefully, between the two of us and others we can get a good pattern established for this engine over time
"Wild Extrapolation", and "21 Century Emotion", Wow!!!!!Easy guys!!!!
If the wear is all very similar, the results say it does not matter which lube you use. This is what the guys have been trying to say and this oil has not delivered wear results that are superior, base on miles and other factors like fuel dilution, when compared to the other UOAs. They're just being realistic about the UOA and the data. These engines are to new yet to be saying which oil is best, fantastic, superior, or great just yet. Hopefully, between the two of us and others we can get a good pattern established for this engine over time
Last edited:
I never made any remarks that said, "One oil is better than another", I said, "I think this oil did great".....you just continue to dispute that! All I'm hearing from a few of you is how bad this oil performed, I know for a fact, that is not the case!!!!
Originally Posted By: jb2trbof150
I never made any remarks that said, "One oil is better than another", I said, "I think this oil did great".....you just continue to dispute that! All I'm hearing from a few of you is how bad this oil performed, I know for a fact, that is not the case!!!!
Originally Posted By: jb2trbof150
The ecoboost 3.5 just doesn't have many comparables yet, but Blackstone test reveal 3 categories, wear being similar. Miles, sus vis @210F, cst vis. A 100C, and TBN...1. MC semisyn 4629 miles, 50.3, 7.36, 2.0...2. Castrol edge 4909 mile, 55.9, 9.03, 3.9...3.MC semisyn 5077 miles, 48.2, 6.73, ?...4. Kendall FS 5728 miles, 51.5, 7.74, 1.5...Penn. Ultra 4906 miles, 56.3, 9.15, 2.4...which one looks like better results? I know, I know, not very scientific, right?
By this statement it appeared that way. I'm not disputing anything, just pointing out the facts from the data.
I never made any remarks that said, "One oil is better than another", I said, "I think this oil did great".....you just continue to dispute that! All I'm hearing from a few of you is how bad this oil performed, I know for a fact, that is not the case!!!!
Originally Posted By: jb2trbof150
The ecoboost 3.5 just doesn't have many comparables yet, but Blackstone test reveal 3 categories, wear being similar. Miles, sus vis @210F, cst vis. A 100C, and TBN...1. MC semisyn 4629 miles, 50.3, 7.36, 2.0...2. Castrol edge 4909 mile, 55.9, 9.03, 3.9...3.MC semisyn 5077 miles, 48.2, 6.73, ?...4. Kendall FS 5728 miles, 51.5, 7.74, 1.5...Penn. Ultra 4906 miles, 56.3, 9.15, 2.4...which one looks like better results? I know, I know, not very scientific, right?
By this statement it appeared that way. I'm not disputing anything, just pointing out the facts from the data.
Last edited:
The question is asking, "which one looks like better results?", you guys obviously have all the answers...since I'm not coming up with any conclusions that make sense.
Originally Posted By: jb2trbof150
The question is asking, "which one looks like better results?", you guys obviously have all the answers...since I'm not coming up with any conclusions that make sense.
Don't believe I said you think one is the better than the other. I said it appeared like you said one is better than the other, in regards to the castrol edge. All I did was answered your question, "which one looks like better results".
The question is asking, "which one looks like better results?", you guys obviously have all the answers...since I'm not coming up with any conclusions that make sense.
Don't believe I said you think one is the better than the other. I said it appeared like you said one is better than the other, in regards to the castrol edge. All I did was answered your question, "which one looks like better results".
Last edited:
I loaded up on Gold Edge because data sheets suggested that Castrol cheapened the formula foe Titanium Edge.
Now I will stop hunting for 3 more quarts of Gold Edge.
Now I will stop hunting for 3 more quarts of Gold Edge.
Originally Posted By: jb2trbof150
...for 5 quarts of oil, that retails for over $9.00 a quart!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Retails for over $9.00 a quart? Surely you jest.
...for 5 quarts of oil, that retails for over $9.00 a quart!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Retails for over $9.00 a quart? Surely you jest.
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: jb2trbof150
The question is asking, "which one looks like better results?", you guys obviously have all the answers...since I'm not coming up with any conclusions that make sense.
Herein lays the fundemental problem with most people in how they use (or more accurately, misuse) UOA data.
There are two concepts to understand; one is micro analysis and the other is macro analysis. One covers the individual scenarios, the other covers mass population exposures.
Singular UOA data points cannot be used in determining that anything is "better" than another. But singular UOA data can be used to see how one situation compared/contrasted to a body of averages. It is a matter of how we control (exclude) and manipulate (include) variables, keeping in mind averages and deviations.
In no scientificaly reasonable manner can you have an engine that is likely finishing up a break in process, and two separate UOAs using two completely different lubes, whereas you to draw any conclusion whatsoever as to which lube is "better". Just cannot be done with any sense of truth or merit.
To be able to fairly compare/contrast individual lube choices, you must establish long-term trends and ranges for all candidates. You should run tens-of-thousands of miles and take many multiple UOAs along the way, so that you can see not only the "average" wear rates, but also the standard deviation associated with those results. Only then can one lube be declared "better" for any one specific situation. This is the application of micro analysis.
However, you CAN take a singular UOA, and compare/contrast it to a set of large-body averages (aka universal averages). This does not allow you to say that one singular data point set from a UOA shows that something is "better" or "worse", but it can allow one to state if something is "normal" (i.e. - reasonable average) if the singular UOA results are within the standard deviation of the universal average data streams.
I would ask that you go back and re-read my posts. I never said that this oil did a bad job. I said that you cannot fairly compare/contrast the two lubes you tried, and that this current UOA shows that some characteristics did not fare well for such a short exposure period. I specifically stated that comments like "great" and "fantastic" were overblown in referring to this report, and it was my intent to challenge the rationale of how you came to that conclusion. You have yet to provide the information we need to make a reasonable determination on this UOA in a macro sense, because we don't see any "universal average" data. And in no way, shape, or form can you fairly and accuratly make a micro-analysis conclusion on the UOA; you dont' have a fraction of the data needed to do so.
Additionally, knowing how to interpret data is only the first part of running a good lube program. You must be able to take the data, make reasonable conclusions, and then apply those criteria to a point of determination (decision) for some intended goal. Just because you know how much wear you are seeing, means next to nothing if you cannot use that data to make a determination of when to change oil and/or filters. You must understand not only the wear rates, but the condmetionation limits (total magnitude of wear) that is reasonably permissible as to trigger an OCI, relative to all the parameters tracked. And finally, you must be able to take all this info, and then find your ROI for each proposed situation. You should be viewing each lube choice relative to the lifecycle attainable, and finding the "better" payout.
That whole process is how UOAs should be used in a well defined overall maintenance program. Unfortunately, most folks here use UOAs as toys, and have nearly no understanding whatsoever of how to interpret them, and what to do with the data after it is gleaned.
You mentioned that this UOA is from your truck; a vehicle that you own and you control. You indicate that you will decide when to OCI and with what lube. I could not agree with you more. I fully, completely, unequivically contend that you are in charge of your life. I would have it no other way; live and let live. But don't confuse the topics of emotion and logic. Your conclusions are based upon feeling and not data. You have every right to profess your opinions in this public forum. And I have every right to remind you and others that your conclusions are not logical, nor based upon a solid foundation. My "opinion" is that your "opinion" is emotional and not logical. There is nothing wrong with having emotions (we all have them) and there is even nothing wrong with making decisions upon emotional criteria (we all do it), but it is a false pretense to try to pass off emotional decisions as logical; that is untrue and misleading.
Originally Posted By: jb2trbof150
I've presented the data to maybe help someone else make a decision on the oil they may use.
Perhaps that was your intent. But, it cannot be used in that manner with any credibility. It is at the tail-end of break in, and there is no ability to make a factual conclusion as to either micro or macro performance of the lubes. We can make anecdotal observations of the relative parameters such as vis shearing and such. Nothing more; nothing less.
I bid you a good day. It is not my intent to offend you. But as members of this open, voluntary, public forum, I have the privilege to challenge your conclusions as much as you have the privilege to post them here. You most certainly can post an emotional evaluation of your UOA; I can post a logical response.
The question is asking, "which one looks like better results?", you guys obviously have all the answers...since I'm not coming up with any conclusions that make sense.
Herein lays the fundemental problem with most people in how they use (or more accurately, misuse) UOA data.
There are two concepts to understand; one is micro analysis and the other is macro analysis. One covers the individual scenarios, the other covers mass population exposures.
Singular UOA data points cannot be used in determining that anything is "better" than another. But singular UOA data can be used to see how one situation compared/contrasted to a body of averages. It is a matter of how we control (exclude) and manipulate (include) variables, keeping in mind averages and deviations.
In no scientificaly reasonable manner can you have an engine that is likely finishing up a break in process, and two separate UOAs using two completely different lubes, whereas you to draw any conclusion whatsoever as to which lube is "better". Just cannot be done with any sense of truth or merit.
To be able to fairly compare/contrast individual lube choices, you must establish long-term trends and ranges for all candidates. You should run tens-of-thousands of miles and take many multiple UOAs along the way, so that you can see not only the "average" wear rates, but also the standard deviation associated with those results. Only then can one lube be declared "better" for any one specific situation. This is the application of micro analysis.
However, you CAN take a singular UOA, and compare/contrast it to a set of large-body averages (aka universal averages). This does not allow you to say that one singular data point set from a UOA shows that something is "better" or "worse", but it can allow one to state if something is "normal" (i.e. - reasonable average) if the singular UOA results are within the standard deviation of the universal average data streams.
I would ask that you go back and re-read my posts. I never said that this oil did a bad job. I said that you cannot fairly compare/contrast the two lubes you tried, and that this current UOA shows that some characteristics did not fare well for such a short exposure period. I specifically stated that comments like "great" and "fantastic" were overblown in referring to this report, and it was my intent to challenge the rationale of how you came to that conclusion. You have yet to provide the information we need to make a reasonable determination on this UOA in a macro sense, because we don't see any "universal average" data. And in no way, shape, or form can you fairly and accuratly make a micro-analysis conclusion on the UOA; you dont' have a fraction of the data needed to do so.
Additionally, knowing how to interpret data is only the first part of running a good lube program. You must be able to take the data, make reasonable conclusions, and then apply those criteria to a point of determination (decision) for some intended goal. Just because you know how much wear you are seeing, means next to nothing if you cannot use that data to make a determination of when to change oil and/or filters. You must understand not only the wear rates, but the condmetionation limits (total magnitude of wear) that is reasonably permissible as to trigger an OCI, relative to all the parameters tracked. And finally, you must be able to take all this info, and then find your ROI for each proposed situation. You should be viewing each lube choice relative to the lifecycle attainable, and finding the "better" payout.
That whole process is how UOAs should be used in a well defined overall maintenance program. Unfortunately, most folks here use UOAs as toys, and have nearly no understanding whatsoever of how to interpret them, and what to do with the data after it is gleaned.
You mentioned that this UOA is from your truck; a vehicle that you own and you control. You indicate that you will decide when to OCI and with what lube. I could not agree with you more. I fully, completely, unequivically contend that you are in charge of your life. I would have it no other way; live and let live. But don't confuse the topics of emotion and logic. Your conclusions are based upon feeling and not data. You have every right to profess your opinions in this public forum. And I have every right to remind you and others that your conclusions are not logical, nor based upon a solid foundation. My "opinion" is that your "opinion" is emotional and not logical. There is nothing wrong with having emotions (we all have them) and there is even nothing wrong with making decisions upon emotional criteria (we all do it), but it is a false pretense to try to pass off emotional decisions as logical; that is untrue and misleading.
Originally Posted By: jb2trbof150
I've presented the data to maybe help someone else make a decision on the oil they may use.
Perhaps that was your intent. But, it cannot be used in that manner with any credibility. It is at the tail-end of break in, and there is no ability to make a factual conclusion as to either micro or macro performance of the lubes. We can make anecdotal observations of the relative parameters such as vis shearing and such. Nothing more; nothing less.
I bid you a good day. It is not my intent to offend you. But as members of this open, voluntary, public forum, I have the privilege to challenge your conclusions as much as you have the privilege to post them here. You most certainly can post an emotional evaluation of your UOA; I can post a logical response.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Hallmark
Originally Posted By: jb2trbof150
...for 5 quarts of oil, that retails for over $9.00 a quart!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Retails for over $9.00 a quart? Surely you jest.
I begrudgingly paid 9.59USD a qt for Edge with FST two weeks ago at AAP. Walmart seems to be the place to get faux-syn cheap up here, but I wanted to try something other than Mobil or Valvoline. Edge is suppose to have low vII and highest noack of all major 0w20 - for whatever thats worth. Edge does coat the dipstick rather than have dip stick-O-phobia like those of suspect majority group III and IV stocks.
Originally Posted By: jb2trbof150
...for 5 quarts of oil, that retails for over $9.00 a quart!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Retails for over $9.00 a quart? Surely you jest.
I begrudgingly paid 9.59USD a qt for Edge with FST two weeks ago at AAP. Walmart seems to be the place to get faux-syn cheap up here, but I wanted to try something other than Mobil or Valvoline. Edge is suppose to have low vII and highest noack of all major 0w20 - for whatever thats worth. Edge does coat the dipstick rather than have dip stick-O-phobia like those of suspect majority group III and IV stocks.
Last edited:
K-mart has Edge on sale for $5.99 a quart right now. I might bite for my upcoming winter fill.
Make sure its gold bottle w/FST not syntec tech. Given the low VI of the SN 0w20 (vs the prev SM EDGE) and the raised pour point numbers and the claimed "lowest volatility" we may be looking at a majority group V oil here (I hope).
- Status
Similar threads
