Which is the best Noack oil? I have these choices:

mr_boring said:
"don't feed the trolls, they said......"




OP - hey guys, I'm looking for a 1000 island dressing with the least amount of pickles in it because X. I have these 4 options, which of these 4 have the least pickles?

Everyone else - you should order this Yum aTum sauce from Bangfack Japan. It doesn't even have chunks of pickles, more like pickle residue. Why do you want less pickles? You don't know what you want......

OP - I don't want Yum aTum sauce, I want 1000 island and I don't want to order it. (maybe OP only has 5 bucks....., Yum aTum sauce is 25 bucks)

Everyone else - no, you really don't, and you should just order the gods cursed Yum aTum sauce. You are a stupid troll. 1000 island isn't even real 1000 island, only Yum aTum is 1000 island.
Click to expand...
giphy.gif
 
silvius said:
I have the following choices in oils for my next 0W-20 oil change: SuperTech full synthetic, SuperTech Advanced full synthetic, Quaker State Full Synthetic, Pennzoil Platinum Full Synthetic, and Valvoline Advanced Full Synthetic.

Which has the best Noack number for my direct injected non turbo four cylinder engine?
Click to expand...
Describe best for me
 
Rod Knock said:
What's a fake synthetic?
Click to expand...
According to Mobil, Group III-hydrocracked oils, when Exxon-Mobil sued Castrol about Castrol labeling their Syntec Group III oil "Full Synthetic" (and lost the lawsuit, so Mobil thought... if you can't beat them, join them)

Even zee-Germans feel the same way. Germany does not allow companies to label Group III primary oils as "Full Synthetic", only "Synthetic Technology"
Full Synthetic Group IV base "Vollsynthetisches"
1686907770368.png


Synthetic Technology, "Synthesetechnologie"

1686907996271.png

In non-German labels, leichtlauf high tech 5w-40 is a "Fully Synthetic" oil, same SKU, 2331 for the 1L bottle, but by miracle of not being sold in Germany, the label is upgraded to "Fully Synthetic" without a trace of Group IV basestock.
1686908113261.png


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to the OP...
why does the OP want the lowest NOACK oil? There is an unproven theory that NOACK has a correlation on intake valve deposits. It makes some people sleep better at night, just like catch cans
 
UG_Passat said:
According to Mobil, Group III-hydrocracked oils, when Exxon-Mobil sued Castrol about Castrol labeling their Syntec Group III oil "Full Synthetic" (and lost the lawsuit, so Mobil thought... if you can't beat them, join them)
Click to expand...
Which was pretty silly on many levels since Mobil was selling Group III based synthetics (and labeling them that way) in many regions at the time. It was selective outrage.

And it was really just a complaint with the BBB NAD, which unlike a lawsuit had no legal outcome either way.
 
silvius said:
You say you aren't concerned with the oil's Noack number on a turbo DI engine? Interesting take.....
Click to expand...
Just because you’ve read a bunch of histrionics on the internet about a topic, doesn’t mean it has a basis in reality.

To tell you how much of a non-issue Noack is, High Performance Lubricants doesn’t even test their oils for it, partly because it’s a flawed, not-very-repeatable test of questionable value inside a running engine.

Your engine doesn’t resemble an open cup full of oil sitting on a dorm room hot plate with a fan blowing on it. That may well be one of the reasons kschachn isn’t concerned.
 
SubieRubyRoo said:
High Performance Lubricants doesn’t even test their oils for it
Click to expand...
Actually, they perform gravimetric analysis. It's more accurate than the good ol' NOACK test, and safer to perform. I see what you're saying though.
 
From SonofJoe:

“It usually works like this... Piston deposits can arise from three distinct sources. 1) Decomposition of the VII polymer. The more polymer you have in your oil, the more deposits you tend to get. Synthetic oils tend to contain less VII polymer but you need to be careful how you interpret this. A synthetic 10W30 will contain less VII than a mineral 10W30 but a wide cross-grade synthetic 0W40 may well contain more VII than a narrow cross-grade mineral 10W30. 2) Oxidation of the oil. Unless you're still using an oil based on Group I stocks, you generally don't need to worry about this unless you're into extended OCIs. If you are into extended OCIs, synthetics oxidise less than minerals and will generate less deposits 3) Burnt oil. This could be due to worn valve seals or worn rings. However nowadays, the most likely source of burnt oil is light base stock, stripped out of the crankcase by hot blow-by & recycled through the PCV system. If you want to minimise burnt oil related deposits, use a low Noack oil. Synthetics tend to have lower Noacks than minerals but again you need to be aware of the wide cross-grade vs narrow cross-grade thing. Other things to bear in mind are that in terms of additives, polymeric ashless dispersants counter piston deposits, overbased metallic detergents do not. Heavy oils (or light oils that contain a reasonable amount of very heavy base stock) are way better at preventing piston deposits than light oils. Hope that helps..”

“'ll try and give you the honest answer... In the world of engine oil volatility/oil loss, there are three ways of looking at things. - There's real-life where a oil might spend say 250 hours fluctuating between ambient & 100°C - There's the Noack test which whacks up the oil to an unrealistically high 250°C for just one hour - Finally there are the industry standard engines like the Sequence IIIG which keeps the oil at 150°C for 100 hours on a cyclically operated engine. I can say absolutely categorically that with the industry standard tests (not just the US Sequence IIIG but also the European Peugeot TU5), oil consumption IS very Noack dependant. The correlation isn't perfect but nor would I expect it to be. In both tests, you can see from the used oil analyses, carried out during the test, that the oil is, for want of a better word, 'distilling', with simple, additive-free light base oil exiting the crankcase with the blow-by & leaving all of the heavy stuff in the oil in the sump. This implies true 'evaporation' of oil into the vapour phase; not just physically 'misted' fully formulated oil (although it's quite possible the two look alike to the naked eye). Just to highlight how big a deal this is, on the TU5, the oil contaminated blow-by is not returned to the intake system but cooled, condensed & vented. Put a 15% Noack oil on the TU5 and in 72 hours you might completely empty the sump of oil! However you usually get very clean pistons at end-of-test because no oil has been burnt. On the IIIG, oil contaminated blow-by is (just like on a real car) routed through the PCV/intake system and subsequently burnt. It's impossible to empty the IIIG sump of oil with a 15% Noack oil but I guarantee that the pistons will look diabolical at the end of the test! The big question, one that people like me can't honestly answer, is how does this all relate to real life, where the oil is generally cooler but exposed to hot blow-by for far longer? Instinctively I'd say this is less severe but some oil will ALWAYS get evaporated & burnt because that's how multi-component vapour-liquid equilibrium works. Also real life involves stuff like fuel dilution (something neither the Noack nor industry tests addresses) and the cyclic re-evaporation of condensed gasoline & water from the sump will act to exacerbate the distillation of base oil from the sump. So IMO, if you want clean pistons, think low Noack.”
 
buster said:
Noack still has some value.
Click to expand...
A well-blended finished product with good base oils and low levels of VII will not even need to worry about Noack. That was my initial point; sorry if it wasn’t clear.

If one is simply buying the cheapest shelf stock oil that has very thin base oil and higher VII levels (think the oils with 10%+ VIIs on Gokhan’s list), then yes, the user should be very aware that Noack is going to trend towards the maximum allowable, and also checks the boxes of all 3 “no-no’s” of SonOfJoe’s great discussion.

I personally think the flip side of that coin is what we’ve seen in some valvetrain pics where people say somewhat reasonable maintenance had been performed- the light base oils distill off, the higher levels of VIIs shear down and are misted in the crankcase, and then these heavier fractions are then deposited in areas with lower oil flow across the surface, resulting in the heavy varnishes and nasty pics. It at least seems to make sense to me.
 
SubieRubyRoo said:
Yep, TGA is a more reliable, more repeatable test.
Click to expand...
And like @OVERKILL and I have dipped our toes into here before (but I obviously don’t understand all the caveats), the use of higher and higher levels of VIIs being used to chase really high VIs is an overall detriment to those who put their eggs in the Noack basket- you can almost unfailingly look at the viscosity index of two oils and immediately know which one has lower evaporation: the oil with the lower viscosity index will have lower Noack, all other things being similar.

An example to validate this: look at the VI of original TGMO and HPL’s No VII 10w20. There’s about a 70-point spread in VI. TGMO Noack was around 15-16% IIRC; HPL is 3.4%. That’s a 400% reduction in evaporation even though the per-quart cost of those oils is very similar.

There are plenty of “decent” oils available on the shelf, but there is no way around the limitations of oil chemistries- cheaper feed stocks will always result in lower overall system cleanliness. I agree that Mobil 1 EP and ESP check the largest majority of boxes for the largest percentage of BITOG “must-haves” and right now those product lines are probably the pinnacle of shelf stock oils.
 
SubieRubyRoo said:
A well-blended finished product with good base oils and low levels of VII will not even need to worry about Noack. That was my initial point; sorry if it wasn’t clear.

If one is simply buying the cheapest shelf stock oil that has very thin base oil and higher VII levels (think the oils with 10%+ VIIs on Gokhan’s list), then yes, the user should be very aware that Noack is going to trend towards the maximum allowable, and also checks the boxes of all 3 “no-no’s” of SonOfJoe’s great discussion.

I personally think the flip side of that coin is what we’ve seen in some valvetrain pics where people say somewhat reasonable maintenance had been performed- the light base oils distill off, the higher levels of VIIs shear down and are misted in the crankcase, and then these heavier fractions are then deposited in areas with lower oil flow across the surface, resulting in the heavy varnishes and nasty pics. It at least seems to make sense to me.
Click to expand...
I agree. (y)
 
Last edited:
"Other things to bear in mind are that in terms of additives, polymeric ashless dispersants counter piston deposits, overbased metallic detergents do not"

Some of these Euro lower SA blends are very appealing as they appear to contain the same or higher quality base oils, minus all the overbased metallic additives/detergents. Mobil 1 Triple may fall into this category now with it's unique additive system.

Lubricants with no or very low ash rely on ashless dispersants for max control of insolubles/deposits.

The price of Amsoil Euro 5w30 is $17.99 qt (PC cost is $13.99) Purely speculating but it's possible this is due to these modern chemistries while still retaining the great solvency/oxidation resistance base oils. It's a known fact that the chemistry required for such blends is more costly. Kind of a best of both worlds approach? 🤷‍♂️
 
Last edited:
Also, to give you an idea how sensitive the testing is to validate chemistry that prevents deposits Amsoil had to develop their own dew point/climate-controlled engine facility. It makes that much of a difference.
 
Last edited:
buster said:
"Other things to bear in mind are that in terms of additives, polymeric ashless dispersants counter piston deposits, overbased metallic detergents do not"

Some of these Euro lower SA blends are very appealing as they appear to contain the same or higher quality base oils, minus all the overbased metallic additives/detergents. Mobil 1 Triple may fall into this category now with it's unique additive system.

Lubricants with no or very low ash rely on ashless dispersants for max control of insolubles/deposits.

The price of Amsoil Euro 5w30 is $17.99 qt (PC cost is $13.99) Purely speculating but it's possible this is due to these modern chemistries while still retaining the great solvency/oxidation resistance base oils. It's a known fact that the chemistry required for such blends is more costly. Kind of a best of both worlds approach? 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...

Appears that the 5 quart jug of Pennzoil Platinum Euro L is a real good buy for $27 with ACEA C3, BMW LL-04, and MB-approval 229.51.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
PQIA Noack test temp
Replies
6
Views
1K
HKPolice
S
I year motor oil
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
Scott S
N
  • Locked
The main reason I change oil at 3000 miles...sludge!
4 5 6
Replies
107
Views
11K
Astro14
F
Oil Recommendation Nissan VQ40DE + opinions on current oil/filter
2
Replies
31
Views
689
ka9mnx
C
M1 5W30 EP D1 / Gen 3 Users ?
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
Triple_Se7en
Back
Top