Does anyone have any comments/thoughts on the TAN level? I am under the impression this is quite a high TAN level for an unused engine oil. Does it suggest anything about the base oil used for this formulation? From what I have seen, ester-based oils start out with TANs in this range.
VOA with TBN and TAN for Mobil 1 AFE 0W-20 SN
- Thread starter btanchors
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: tinmanSC
I'm weary of making this type of statement because we have not seen UOAs from this oil. VOA only tells some of the story.
Indeed. What is a "good" additive, anyway? 0w20 had to be exempted from the new GF-5 TEOST33 piston deposits sequence because Toyota and Honda like high moly 0w20, and high moly oils leave too many deposits to pass TEOST33.
(That sound you just heard was the collective gasps of the entire Pennzoil marketing department.)
Of course, UOA's also only tell a fraction of the story. Even leaving aside the mounting evidence that most lab analyses aren't worth the paper they are printed on.
I'm weary of making this type of statement because we have not seen UOAs from this oil. VOA only tells some of the story.
Indeed. What is a "good" additive, anyway? 0w20 had to be exempted from the new GF-5 TEOST33 piston deposits sequence because Toyota and Honda like high moly 0w20, and high moly oils leave too many deposits to pass TEOST33.
(That sound you just heard was the collective gasps of the entire Pennzoil marketing department.)
Of course, UOA's also only tell a fraction of the story. Even leaving aside the mounting evidence that most lab analyses aren't worth the paper they are printed on.
buster - Blackstone did indicate they ran the elemental analysis twice and it came out very similar both times...Will you be submitting a sample as well?
Originally Posted By: buster
You can not conclude anything from VOA.
While its not as much fun from a hobbyist amateur standpoint, we would probably to well to focus on API/ILSAC/Manufacturer standards than upon the results of any sort of enthusiast-grade oil analysis, virgin or used.
Quote:
Oils get BETTER over time, not worse. SN > SM in every way.
SN is different from SM. By the criteria of the API, it is better for today than is SM.
The ILSAC standard is probably more relevant. It reflects, pretty directly, the desires of the warrantors in this 60,000 - 100,000 mile power train/emissions system warranty world. Throw in a dash of CAFE, and $4/gal gasoline, and I'd say that the manufacturers' and consumers' goals and desires mesh pretty well.
ILSAC GF-5 is the result of a group of very well organized warrantors, with deep pockets and access to resources that armchair hobbyists can only dream of, employing armies of individuals with the expertise to actually understand the product specific data which we not only do not have access to, but probably do not have the educational context to understand.
SN/GF-5 is not the be-all and end-all of PCMO lubricants, of course. It is a sort of minimum standard. Oil vendors are free to vary their formulations within its boundaries.
In its way, this forum sometimes reminds me of pet nutrition forums. There is a great degree of similarity between how we treat UAOs and VOAs, and how people are indoctrinated into the "rules" of reading pet food ingredient labels. This ingredient is good (meat). That one is just a cost-cutter (corn). In general, in those forums, the more meat the better. And one is carefully instructed about the difference between "chicken" and "chicken meal". (The former being inferior since it is fresh chicken, and its weight includes the water in the meat.)
Of course, most DACVN's (Diplomates of the American College of Veterinary Nutrition... sort of the tribologists' council of pet food) know very well that the ingredients list, as presented in a VOA... err, excuse me... on the side of the pet food package... is pretty much useless for evaluating the nutritional balance of the food. What you really want to see on the package is an AAFCO certification. (Sort of the API/ILSAC certification for pet food.) It means that animals have actually eaten this food, stayed healthy, and gotten good results in blood tests while on it.
As in the lubricant industry, there is no shortage of "boutique" vendors who eschew industry standards set by educated experts in favor of "producing the best food possible". Innova is arguably the "Amsoil" of boutique pet foods. (Though I will credit them with the fact that they do recommend feeding your dog daily, and not once every 2 years.)
"Chicken Soup for the Pet Lover's Soul" is maybe the "Redline" of the industry. Not so tunnel-visioned as Innova regarding "Meat! Meat! Meat!", but without the resources of, say, Hills, which employs more DACVNs than any other pet food company in the world.
Certainly, economics figures in. But half the threads here seem to involve price. (I bought this stuff because it was on sale at AutoZone!)
I certainly don't mind paying top dollar for a good oil. But I can't help but feel that oils which meet industry and auto manufacturer standards, made by companies with deep pockets, with lots of good tribologists on staff, are my best bet for getting the best oil. If it comes at a price which reflects volume sales... so be it. That is, I suspect, the case with M1 AFE 0w20.
And what does my dog eat? It's a fairly pricey Hill's product only available by prescription. But I freely admit to being a little irrational when it comes to Shadow. And it has all the credibility of being "Hills" but with a bit of a price premium.
You can not conclude anything from VOA.
While its not as much fun from a hobbyist amateur standpoint, we would probably to well to focus on API/ILSAC/Manufacturer standards than upon the results of any sort of enthusiast-grade oil analysis, virgin or used.
Quote:
Oils get BETTER over time, not worse. SN > SM in every way.
SN is different from SM. By the criteria of the API, it is better for today than is SM.
The ILSAC standard is probably more relevant. It reflects, pretty directly, the desires of the warrantors in this 60,000 - 100,000 mile power train/emissions system warranty world. Throw in a dash of CAFE, and $4/gal gasoline, and I'd say that the manufacturers' and consumers' goals and desires mesh pretty well.
ILSAC GF-5 is the result of a group of very well organized warrantors, with deep pockets and access to resources that armchair hobbyists can only dream of, employing armies of individuals with the expertise to actually understand the product specific data which we not only do not have access to, but probably do not have the educational context to understand.
SN/GF-5 is not the be-all and end-all of PCMO lubricants, of course. It is a sort of minimum standard. Oil vendors are free to vary their formulations within its boundaries.
In its way, this forum sometimes reminds me of pet nutrition forums. There is a great degree of similarity between how we treat UAOs and VOAs, and how people are indoctrinated into the "rules" of reading pet food ingredient labels. This ingredient is good (meat). That one is just a cost-cutter (corn). In general, in those forums, the more meat the better. And one is carefully instructed about the difference between "chicken" and "chicken meal". (The former being inferior since it is fresh chicken, and its weight includes the water in the meat.)
Of course, most DACVN's (Diplomates of the American College of Veterinary Nutrition... sort of the tribologists' council of pet food) know very well that the ingredients list, as presented in a VOA... err, excuse me... on the side of the pet food package... is pretty much useless for evaluating the nutritional balance of the food. What you really want to see on the package is an AAFCO certification. (Sort of the API/ILSAC certification for pet food.) It means that animals have actually eaten this food, stayed healthy, and gotten good results in blood tests while on it.
As in the lubricant industry, there is no shortage of "boutique" vendors who eschew industry standards set by educated experts in favor of "producing the best food possible". Innova is arguably the "Amsoil" of boutique pet foods. (Though I will credit them with the fact that they do recommend feeding your dog daily, and not once every 2 years.)
"Chicken Soup for the Pet Lover's Soul" is maybe the "Redline" of the industry. Not so tunnel-visioned as Innova regarding "Meat! Meat! Meat!", but without the resources of, say, Hills, which employs more DACVNs than any other pet food company in the world.
Certainly, economics figures in. But half the threads here seem to involve price. (I bought this stuff because it was on sale at AutoZone!)
I certainly don't mind paying top dollar for a good oil. But I can't help but feel that oils which meet industry and auto manufacturer standards, made by companies with deep pockets, with lots of good tribologists on staff, are my best bet for getting the best oil. If it comes at a price which reflects volume sales... so be it. That is, I suspect, the case with M1 AFE 0w20.
And what does my dog eat? It's a fairly pricey Hill's product only available by prescription. But I freely admit to being a little irrational when it comes to Shadow. And it has all the credibility of being "Hills" but with a bit of a price premium.
Originally Posted By: buster
You can not conclude anything from VOA.
Let's see if it's even right first. Remember this is B/S labs.
tig's comment is ridiculous. Oils get BETTER over time, not worse. SN > SM in every way.
What did I say that is ridiculous? Several have commented that the formulation doesn't seem to be as good as the SM version of 0-20. Certainly the TBN is less, so maybe the SM version is better than the the new SN oil. As for the mag and cal I don't have a clue what makes a better oil. In the past I have gone by the long term results of oils to make judgements, as I and not a chemist.
You can not conclude anything from VOA.
Let's see if it's even right first. Remember this is B/S labs.
tig's comment is ridiculous. Oils get BETTER over time, not worse. SN > SM in every way.
What did I say that is ridiculous? Several have commented that the formulation doesn't seem to be as good as the SM version of 0-20. Certainly the TBN is less, so maybe the SM version is better than the the new SN oil. As for the mag and cal I don't have a clue what makes a better oil. In the past I have gone by the long term results of oils to make judgements, as I and not a chemist.
Originally Posted By: Spockian1
Originally Posted By: buster
You can not conclude anything from VOA.
While its not as much fun from a hobbyist amateur standpoint, we would probably to well to focus on API/ILSAC/Manufacturer standards than upon the results of any sort of enthusiast-grade oil analysis, virgin or used.
Quote:
Oils get BETTER over time, not worse. SN > SM in every way.
SN is different from SM. By the criteria of the API, it is better for today than is SM.
The ILSAC standard is probably more relevant. It reflects, pretty directly, the desires of the warrantors in this 60,000 - 100,000 mile power train/emissions system warranty world. Throw in a dash of CAFE, and $4/gal gasoline, and I'd say that the manufacturers' and consumers' goals and desires mesh pretty well.
ILSAC GF-5 is the result of a group of very well organized warrantors, with deep pockets and access to resources that armchair hobbyists can only dream of, employing armies of individuals with the expertise to actually understand the product specific data which we not only do not have access to, but probably do not have the educational context to understand.
SN/GF-5 is not the be-all and end-all of PCMO lubricants, of course. It is a sort of minimum standard. Oil vendors are free to vary their formulations within its boundaries.
In its way, this forum sometimes reminds me of pet nutrition forums. There is a great degree of similarity between how we treat UAOs and VOAs, and how people are indoctrinated into the "rules" of reading pet food ingredient labels. This ingredient is good (meat). That one is just a cost-cutter (corn). In general, in those forums, the more meat the better. And one is carefully instructed about the difference between "chicken" and "chicken meal". (The former being inferior since it is fresh chicken, and its weight includes the water in the meat.)
Of course, most DACVN's (Diplomates of the American College of Veterinary Nutrition... sort of the tribologists' council of pet food) know very well that the ingredients list, as presented in a VOA... err, excuse me... on the side of the pet food package... is pretty much useless for evaluating the nutritional balance of the food. What you really want to see on the package is an AAFCO certification. (Sort of the API/ILSAC certification for pet food.) It means that animals have actually eaten this food, stayed healthy, and gotten good results in blood tests while on it.
As in the lubricant industry, there is no shortage of "boutique" vendors who eschew industry standards set by educated experts in favor of "producing the best food possible". Innova is arguably the "Amsoil" of boutique pet foods. (Though I will credit them with the fact that they do recommend feeding your dog daily, and not once every 2 years.)
"Chicken Soup for the Pet Lover's Soul" is maybe the "Redline" of the industry. Not so tunnel-visioned as Innova regarding "Meat! Meat! Meat!", but without the resources of, say, Hills, which employs more DACVNs than any other pet food company in the world.
Certainly, economics figures in. But half the threads here seem to involve price. (I bought this stuff because it was on sale at AutoZone!)
I certainly don't mind paying top dollar for a good oil. But I can't help but feel that oils which meet industry and auto manufacturer standards, made by companies with deep pockets, with lots of good tribologists on staff, are my best bet for getting the best oil. If it comes at a price which reflects volume sales... so be it. That is, I suspect, the case with M1 AFE 0w20.
And what does my dog eat? It's a fairly pricey Hill's product only available by prescription. But I freely admit to being a little irrational when it comes to Shadow. And it has all the credibility of being "Hills" but with a bit of a price premium.
Originally Posted By: buster
You can not conclude anything from VOA.
While its not as much fun from a hobbyist amateur standpoint, we would probably to well to focus on API/ILSAC/Manufacturer standards than upon the results of any sort of enthusiast-grade oil analysis, virgin or used.
Quote:
Oils get BETTER over time, not worse. SN > SM in every way.
SN is different from SM. By the criteria of the API, it is better for today than is SM.
The ILSAC standard is probably more relevant. It reflects, pretty directly, the desires of the warrantors in this 60,000 - 100,000 mile power train/emissions system warranty world. Throw in a dash of CAFE, and $4/gal gasoline, and I'd say that the manufacturers' and consumers' goals and desires mesh pretty well.
ILSAC GF-5 is the result of a group of very well organized warrantors, with deep pockets and access to resources that armchair hobbyists can only dream of, employing armies of individuals with the expertise to actually understand the product specific data which we not only do not have access to, but probably do not have the educational context to understand.
SN/GF-5 is not the be-all and end-all of PCMO lubricants, of course. It is a sort of minimum standard. Oil vendors are free to vary their formulations within its boundaries.
In its way, this forum sometimes reminds me of pet nutrition forums. There is a great degree of similarity between how we treat UAOs and VOAs, and how people are indoctrinated into the "rules" of reading pet food ingredient labels. This ingredient is good (meat). That one is just a cost-cutter (corn). In general, in those forums, the more meat the better. And one is carefully instructed about the difference between "chicken" and "chicken meal". (The former being inferior since it is fresh chicken, and its weight includes the water in the meat.)
Of course, most DACVN's (Diplomates of the American College of Veterinary Nutrition... sort of the tribologists' council of pet food) know very well that the ingredients list, as presented in a VOA... err, excuse me... on the side of the pet food package... is pretty much useless for evaluating the nutritional balance of the food. What you really want to see on the package is an AAFCO certification. (Sort of the API/ILSAC certification for pet food.) It means that animals have actually eaten this food, stayed healthy, and gotten good results in blood tests while on it.
As in the lubricant industry, there is no shortage of "boutique" vendors who eschew industry standards set by educated experts in favor of "producing the best food possible". Innova is arguably the "Amsoil" of boutique pet foods. (Though I will credit them with the fact that they do recommend feeding your dog daily, and not once every 2 years.)
"Chicken Soup for the Pet Lover's Soul" is maybe the "Redline" of the industry. Not so tunnel-visioned as Innova regarding "Meat! Meat! Meat!", but without the resources of, say, Hills, which employs more DACVNs than any other pet food company in the world.
Certainly, economics figures in. But half the threads here seem to involve price. (I bought this stuff because it was on sale at AutoZone!)
I certainly don't mind paying top dollar for a good oil. But I can't help but feel that oils which meet industry and auto manufacturer standards, made by companies with deep pockets, with lots of good tribologists on staff, are my best bet for getting the best oil. If it comes at a price which reflects volume sales... so be it. That is, I suspect, the case with M1 AFE 0w20.
And what does my dog eat? It's a fairly pricey Hill's product only available by prescription. But I freely admit to being a little irrational when it comes to Shadow. And it has all the credibility of being "Hills" but with a bit of a price premium.
Originally Posted By: buster
Quote:
After looking at this I'm glad I have two OCs of the SM M1 0-20. I may go back to 5-20EP after the SM is gone. Who ever said GF 5 is better?
Are you serious?
In a way I am serious if the TBN has dropped 10% over the SM oil. By the way I E-mailed XM this morning about this formulation change and the TBN decreasing and my doing 10K OCIs with the new SN 0-20. They responded and said the new 0-20 will in fact do 10K OCIs with out a problem so that settled me a bit. So far the SM 0-20 has been great in the Fusion and I plan to put it in the Focus latter this week. Even though I feel UOAs are a waste on money for the most part(excluding the need to check for coolant, fuel etc.)I might do one after the first 10K OCI to check the TBN. We'll see.
Quote:
After looking at this I'm glad I have two OCs of the SM M1 0-20. I may go back to 5-20EP after the SM is gone. Who ever said GF 5 is better?
Are you serious?
In a way I am serious if the TBN has dropped 10% over the SM oil. By the way I E-mailed XM this morning about this formulation change and the TBN decreasing and my doing 10K OCIs with the new SN 0-20. They responded and said the new 0-20 will in fact do 10K OCIs with out a problem so that settled me a bit. So far the SM 0-20 has been great in the Fusion and I plan to put it in the Focus latter this week. Even though I feel UOAs are a waste on money for the most part(excluding the need to check for coolant, fuel etc.)I might do one after the first 10K OCI to check the TBN. We'll see.
Originally Posted By: buster
tig, the EP oils will most likely have a higher tbn for longer drains. Point I'm making is don't judge an oil by a VOA. Some oils look anemic but are anything but...
It seems XM said the same thing as you. If the new SN 0-20 is as good as the SM version or better, then it will be an outstanding oil for all climates and long OCIs. Thanks for your advise.
tig, the EP oils will most likely have a higher tbn for longer drains. Point I'm making is don't judge an oil by a VOA. Some oils look anemic but are anything but...
It seems XM said the same thing as you. If the new SN 0-20 is as good as the SM version or better, then it will be an outstanding oil for all climates and long OCIs. Thanks for your advise.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: addyguy
Wow - what a change. The add-pack for this oil now looks just like a new CJ-4 HDEO - check out a VOA of RT6 to see what I mean.
This is definite cost-cutting, I suspect, to meet the 'required' OCI. Remeber, this isn't a long-drain oil - this is an oil designed to be used with Honda/Ford/Subuaru OCI's, which will be between 7.5k and about 11k (Honda OLM)...an oil doesn't actually need a lot of TBN to do that - many 7-8 TBN dino's will easily do that.
I still had a TBN of 4.0 when I ran this oil's sister, the 0w30 for 10,400Km.
Wow - what a change. The add-pack for this oil now looks just like a new CJ-4 HDEO - check out a VOA of RT6 to see what I mean.
This is definite cost-cutting, I suspect, to meet the 'required' OCI. Remeber, this isn't a long-drain oil - this is an oil designed to be used with Honda/Ford/Subuaru OCI's, which will be between 7.5k and about 11k (Honda OLM)...an oil doesn't actually need a lot of TBN to do that - many 7-8 TBN dino's will easily do that.
I still had a TBN of 4.0 when I ran this oil's sister, the 0w30 for 10,400Km.
Originally Posted By: tig1
Even though I feel UOAs are a waste on money for the most part(excluding the need to check for coolant, fuel etc.)
While looking at _OA's is interesting, I share your skepticism. Even if the actual numbers were reliable (which they seem, in general, not to be) they can only tell a fraction of the real story. (And no, I don't see "trending" as a magic fix-all for the fundamental problems.)
I do, however, have a data-point to present. This is essentially anecdotal... which is also a form of evidence which I view with a healthy skepticism. But I'll try give enough detail to give this some value.
The 1.0L 3 Cylinder in my '88 Chevy Sprint Metro was completely rebuilt a about 51,000 miles ago. This car does not use hydraulic lifters, so the lash needs to be adjusted manually. This has the advantage of making valve train wear directly measurable. Much (most) of the concern over low HT/HS oils seems to involve valve train wear.
This engine, which is really made by Suzuki, originally called for an SF 5w30. So its nominal minimal requirement for HT/HS was 2.9 cP. (With most 5w30 oils being higher than this minimum.) And the SF spec allowed for high levels of ZDDP. IIRC, typical SF oils were allong the lines of 1200+ ppm of P and Zn.
So the Sprint is a very interesting test-bed for observing the effects of relatively low HT/HS, low ZDDP oils.
After the rebuild, I set the valve lash to the specified 0.006" intake, 0.008" exhaust at normal room temperature. I then ignored it for 50,000 miles, although the maintenance schedule calls for checking and adjusting every 15,000 miles.
Over that period, I used M1 AFE 0w30 (HTHS 2.99, at the time) with ~5,000 mile OCIs, for ~30,000 miles of that. And then M1 AFE 0w20 (HT/HS 2.6. This was the SM/GF-4) with 10,000 mile OCIs for 20,000 miles.
A few days ago, I pulled the valve cover and inspected/adjusted the valve lash. (Again, at room temperature.) Of the 6 valves total, 1 intake and 2 exhaust vales required no adjustment at all. They were still so close to spec that I didn't think I could do any better.
2 intakes, and 1 exhaust required a small adjustment. I would gauge that they were < 0.001" too wide.
I consider this to be an impressive result for the oils
I should say something about the valve train on this car. It is an overhead cam, with what I call a "rocker arm" configuration. The cam sits about 12 cm to the side of the valves. And a rocker arm, with equal length arms, pivoting on about a 2cm stationary shaft, sits in between, and above the cam shaft and the valve stems. One arm rides the cam, the other actuates the valve. In this config, the force at the cam = the force pushing down on the valve.
This should be a lower wear configuration than the popular "finger follower" designs where the cam pushes down somewhere in the middle of a lever supported at one end by a hydraulic adjuster, and on the other by the valve stem. In the finger follower configuration, much higher (2x or more) forces are seen at the cam/follower interface. It is my understanding that wear is a concern even in the roller version of this configuration.
My config is probably more comparable to a "direct action" configuration, where the cam actuates the valve directly.
At any rate, I feel pretty comfortable with the old 0w20 formulation, and see no particular cause for concern regarding the new SN/GF-5 formulation.
P.S. I should also note that this car sees about 95%+ highway use, typically travelling hundreds of miles at a time.
Even though I feel UOAs are a waste on money for the most part(excluding the need to check for coolant, fuel etc.)
While looking at _OA's is interesting, I share your skepticism. Even if the actual numbers were reliable (which they seem, in general, not to be) they can only tell a fraction of the real story. (And no, I don't see "trending" as a magic fix-all for the fundamental problems.)
I do, however, have a data-point to present. This is essentially anecdotal... which is also a form of evidence which I view with a healthy skepticism. But I'll try give enough detail to give this some value.
The 1.0L 3 Cylinder in my '88 Chevy Sprint Metro was completely rebuilt a about 51,000 miles ago. This car does not use hydraulic lifters, so the lash needs to be adjusted manually. This has the advantage of making valve train wear directly measurable. Much (most) of the concern over low HT/HS oils seems to involve valve train wear.
This engine, which is really made by Suzuki, originally called for an SF 5w30. So its nominal minimal requirement for HT/HS was 2.9 cP. (With most 5w30 oils being higher than this minimum.) And the SF spec allowed for high levels of ZDDP. IIRC, typical SF oils were allong the lines of 1200+ ppm of P and Zn.
So the Sprint is a very interesting test-bed for observing the effects of relatively low HT/HS, low ZDDP oils.
After the rebuild, I set the valve lash to the specified 0.006" intake, 0.008" exhaust at normal room temperature. I then ignored it for 50,000 miles, although the maintenance schedule calls for checking and adjusting every 15,000 miles.
Over that period, I used M1 AFE 0w30 (HTHS 2.99, at the time) with ~5,000 mile OCIs, for ~30,000 miles of that. And then M1 AFE 0w20 (HT/HS 2.6. This was the SM/GF-4) with 10,000 mile OCIs for 20,000 miles.
A few days ago, I pulled the valve cover and inspected/adjusted the valve lash. (Again, at room temperature.) Of the 6 valves total, 1 intake and 2 exhaust vales required no adjustment at all. They were still so close to spec that I didn't think I could do any better.
2 intakes, and 1 exhaust required a small adjustment. I would gauge that they were < 0.001" too wide.
I consider this to be an impressive result for the oils
I should say something about the valve train on this car. It is an overhead cam, with what I call a "rocker arm" configuration. The cam sits about 12 cm to the side of the valves. And a rocker arm, with equal length arms, pivoting on about a 2cm stationary shaft, sits in between, and above the cam shaft and the valve stems. One arm rides the cam, the other actuates the valve. In this config, the force at the cam = the force pushing down on the valve.
This should be a lower wear configuration than the popular "finger follower" designs where the cam pushes down somewhere in the middle of a lever supported at one end by a hydraulic adjuster, and on the other by the valve stem. In the finger follower configuration, much higher (2x or more) forces are seen at the cam/follower interface. It is my understanding that wear is a concern even in the roller version of this configuration.
My config is probably more comparable to a "direct action" configuration, where the cam actuates the valve directly.
At any rate, I feel pretty comfortable with the old 0w20 formulation, and see no particular cause for concern regarding the new SN/GF-5 formulation.
P.S. I should also note that this car sees about 95%+ highway use, typically travelling hundreds of miles at a time.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Spockian1
I certainly don't mind paying top dollar for a good oil. But I can't help but feel that oils which meet industry and auto manufacturer standards, made by companies with deep pockets, with lots of good tribologists on staff, are my best bet for getting the best oil. If it comes at a price which reflects volume sales... so be it. That is, I suspect, the case with M1 AFE 0w20.
I don't get it. Its completely backwards. You get "regular" cheaply mass-produced oil.
The "good" oil isn't readily found at Wally's..
I certainly don't mind paying top dollar for a good oil. But I can't help but feel that oils which meet industry and auto manufacturer standards, made by companies with deep pockets, with lots of good tribologists on staff, are my best bet for getting the best oil. If it comes at a price which reflects volume sales... so be it. That is, I suspect, the case with M1 AFE 0w20.
I don't get it. Its completely backwards. You get "regular" cheaply mass-produced oil.
The "good" oil isn't readily found at Wally's..
B-S VOA are useless, UOA are useless, just pick a brand, run the oil, regularly check your fuel mileage and note engine noise and smoothness. Adjust if necessary. That's all you can do. All the drama, layperson armchair pseudo-science and pseudo-chemistry is no longer amusing but instead, sickening. Really.
- Status
Similar threads
