Originally Posted By: Indydriver
In all honesty, I'm more interested in HTO-06.
All HTO-06 focuses on is turbo deposits.
In all honesty, I'm more interested in HTO-06.
All HTO-06 focuses on is turbo deposits.
Last edited:
Pennzoil Platinum and Ultra- not so great
- Thread starter vinu_neuro
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: vinu_neuro
Bottom line is that as soon as they drop ACEA approval they're held to a much lower standard. I'm certainly not a brand loyalist, so given the approval information available I'll go for the one that meets the highest performance standards available for this type of oil. Why would anyone not, considering it doesn't cost any more to do so.
Bottom line is that as soon as they drop ACEA approval they're held to a much lower standard. I'm certainly not a brand loyalist, so given the approval information available I'll go for the one that meets the highest performance standards available for this type of oil. Why would anyone not, considering it doesn't cost any more to do so.
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
.
Great. How does WSS-M2C946-A, which is what PP and PU are approved for, compare to M2C913-C.
.
Great. How does WSS-M2C946-A, which is what PP and PU are approved for, compare to M2C913-C.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: JOD
Originally Posted By: 4ever4d
Great read...I choose an oil for my application based on the mfg spec ie..GM 6094M,Dexos1,MS6395 etc..i always felt as thought this was the best method for the US made gasoline engine and under this method would be protected for many thousands of miles.I still am not convinced 100% that the ACEA specs are in fact applicable at all to the standard gasoline engine used in the US market.Could it be that in fact the oils bearing the ACEA's most recent test specs are just under the "crossover catagory" in that they can be used in gasoline engines or a passenger diesel engine(excluding heavy duty diesel apps)as there are many Euro diesel vehicles on the road in the US thus needing and bearing both the API and ACEA ratings.
In looking at the ACEA test protocol for wear, I'd say that this is exactly the case. The wear test doesn't even involve a gasoline engine.
Originally Posted By: 4ever4d
I realize that the ACEA specs are indeed an upgrade from API.
I disagree. It's "different", but I don't see what's "better" about the test?
Yes,your wording is a more corrrect version,not better but different in that it deals with the diesel in particular.
Originally Posted By: 4ever4d
Great read...I choose an oil for my application based on the mfg spec ie..GM 6094M,Dexos1,MS6395 etc..i always felt as thought this was the best method for the US made gasoline engine and under this method would be protected for many thousands of miles.I still am not convinced 100% that the ACEA specs are in fact applicable at all to the standard gasoline engine used in the US market.Could it be that in fact the oils bearing the ACEA's most recent test specs are just under the "crossover catagory" in that they can be used in gasoline engines or a passenger diesel engine(excluding heavy duty diesel apps)as there are many Euro diesel vehicles on the road in the US thus needing and bearing both the API and ACEA ratings.
In looking at the ACEA test protocol for wear, I'd say that this is exactly the case. The wear test doesn't even involve a gasoline engine.
Originally Posted By: 4ever4d
I realize that the ACEA specs are indeed an upgrade from API.
I disagree. It's "different", but I don't see what's "better" about the test?
Yes,your wording is a more corrrect version,not better but different in that it deals with the diesel in particular.
Originally Posted By: vinu_neuro
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
.
Great. How does WSS-M2C946-A, which is what PP and PU are approved for, compare to M2C913-C.
I'm not sure, but compare Opel Dexos 2 to A5/B5-08, notably in wear performance. It's a shame that tool doesn't have more US relevant specs.
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
.
Great. How does WSS-M2C946-A, which is what PP and PU are approved for, compare to M2C913-C.
I'm not sure, but compare Opel Dexos 2 to A5/B5-08, notably in wear performance. It's a shame that tool doesn't have more US relevant specs.
When you have two oils.. one which only meets API, and another which meets the much more stringent ACEA in addition, why would you not choose the latter?
Because the PCMO's used in NA approved by API,conventional or synthetic,are most often more than good enough for the majority of the population and their daily drivers. There are "better" speciality oils for situational exceptions that are avaliable,but not always needed and in some cases are way too much and by that i am saying it just isn't going to make any difference in normal usage other than empty your wallett quicker. JMO
Because the PCMO's used in NA approved by API,conventional or synthetic,are most often more than good enough for the majority of the population and their daily drivers. There are "better" speciality oils for situational exceptions that are avaliable,but not always needed and in some cases are way too much and by that i am saying it just isn't going to make any difference in normal usage other than empty your wallett quicker. JMO
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: 4ever4d
When you have two oils.. one which only meets API, and another which meets the much more stringent ACEA in addition, why would you not choose the latter?
Because the PCMO used in NA approved by API is most often more than good enough for the majority of the population and their daily drivers. There are "better" speciality oils for situational exceptions.JMO
I won't speak for vinu_neuro, but part of what I'm getting out of this is that potentially (subject to clarification by SOPUS) we have a set of oils that may not meet the more stringent standards that competitors do meet. Whether you "need" the more stringent specifications is somewhat irrelevant to the topic. It's a purely academic debate. But in practical terms, why not go for the oil that meets the most possible specs as long as the specs are relevant to the application? For example, if the ACEA spec requires lower wear than the API spec, whether the higher allowed wear in a lower API spec will ever result in component failure or not may not be important to some consumers. I think most members here are in agreement that as long as you run a minimum spec oil for a reasonable interval it's unlikely you'll have a serious problem.
If the conclusions within this thread concerning the ability of PP and PU to meet current ACEA specs are correct thus far, it would be fair to say that you "get more" for your money with other oils over the SOPUS products.
When you have two oils.. one which only meets API, and another which meets the much more stringent ACEA in addition, why would you not choose the latter?
Because the PCMO used in NA approved by API is most often more than good enough for the majority of the population and their daily drivers. There are "better" speciality oils for situational exceptions.JMO
I won't speak for vinu_neuro, but part of what I'm getting out of this is that potentially (subject to clarification by SOPUS) we have a set of oils that may not meet the more stringent standards that competitors do meet. Whether you "need" the more stringent specifications is somewhat irrelevant to the topic. It's a purely academic debate. But in practical terms, why not go for the oil that meets the most possible specs as long as the specs are relevant to the application? For example, if the ACEA spec requires lower wear than the API spec, whether the higher allowed wear in a lower API spec will ever result in component failure or not may not be important to some consumers. I think most members here are in agreement that as long as you run a minimum spec oil for a reasonable interval it's unlikely you'll have a serious problem.
If the conclusions within this thread concerning the ability of PP and PU to meet current ACEA specs are correct thus far, it would be fair to say that you "get more" for your money with other oils over the SOPUS products.
Originally Posted By: cchase
Originally Posted By: 4ever4d
When you have two oils.. one which only meets API, and another which meets the much more stringent ACEA in addition, why would you not choose the latter?
Because the PCMO used in NA approved by API is most often more than good enough for the majority of the population and their daily drivers. There are "better" speciality oils for situational exceptions.JMO
I won't speak for vinu_neuro, but part of what I'm getting out of this is that potentially (subject to clarification by SOPUS) we have a set of oils that may not meet the more stringent standards that competitors do meet. Whether you "need" the more stringent specifications is somewhat irrelevant to the topic. It's a purely academic debate. But in practical terms, why not go for the oil that meets the most possible specs as long as the specs are relevant to the application? For example, if the ACEA spec requires lower wear than the API spec, whether the higher allowed wear in a lower API spec will ever result in component failure or not may not be important to some consumers. I think most members here are in agreement that as long as you run a minimum spec oil for a reasonable interval it's unlikely you'll have a serious problem.
If the conclusions within this thread concerning the ability of PP and PU to meet current ACEA specs are correct thus far, it would be fair to say that you "get more" for your money with other oils over the SOPUS products.
I agree for the most part other than i don't think you are getting that much more for your money though.As has been stated here many times on BITOG the difference between 300 and 500k is purely mental and significantly marginal in the everyday rat race.
Originally Posted By: 4ever4d
When you have two oils.. one which only meets API, and another which meets the much more stringent ACEA in addition, why would you not choose the latter?
Because the PCMO used in NA approved by API is most often more than good enough for the majority of the population and their daily drivers. There are "better" speciality oils for situational exceptions.JMO
I won't speak for vinu_neuro, but part of what I'm getting out of this is that potentially (subject to clarification by SOPUS) we have a set of oils that may not meet the more stringent standards that competitors do meet. Whether you "need" the more stringent specifications is somewhat irrelevant to the topic. It's a purely academic debate. But in practical terms, why not go for the oil that meets the most possible specs as long as the specs are relevant to the application? For example, if the ACEA spec requires lower wear than the API spec, whether the higher allowed wear in a lower API spec will ever result in component failure or not may not be important to some consumers. I think most members here are in agreement that as long as you run a minimum spec oil for a reasonable interval it's unlikely you'll have a serious problem.
If the conclusions within this thread concerning the ability of PP and PU to meet current ACEA specs are correct thus far, it would be fair to say that you "get more" for your money with other oils over the SOPUS products.
I agree for the most part other than i don't think you are getting that much more for your money though.As has been stated here many times on BITOG the difference between 300 and 500k is purely mental and significantly marginal in the everyday rat race.
Agreed and that statement is subject to that "assumption" that says that PP and PU do not meet the specifications, which may be absolutely not the case.
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: vinu_neuro
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
.
Great. How does WSS-M2C946-A, which is what PP and PU are approved for, compare to M2C913-C.
I'm not sure, but compare Opel Dexos 2 to A5/B5-08, notably in wear performance. It's a shame that tool doesn't have more US relevant specs.
I think Dexos 2 is based on ACEA C3. Both are diesel specific. It would be nice if they had more US specific specs.
An oil that meets M2C913-C (the one in your first screenshot) is European M1 0W-30. Interestingly, it's got 1000ppm phosphorous, API SL.
Originally Posted By: 4ever4d
Because the PCMO used in NA approved by API is most often more than good enough for the majority of the population and their daily drivers. There are "better" speciality oils for situational exceptions.JMO
cchase summed it up nicely. Most people couldn't care less because they aren't aware. But we're on an oil forum and obsess about the minutia that delivers better wear performance. When you see such a massive difference in oil spec performance, there's no reason not use the one that undoubtedly delivers performance to the current highest standard according to people who have the resources to test it. PP, PU and M1 all cost pretty much the same on sale.
As far as the ACEA post-2002 gasoline/diesel combination go.. at least half the cars in Europe are still gasoline so these specs are very much relevant. I believe they will have devised the tests in a manner to be applicable to both.
PP does meet ACEA. Though so far we've only seen evidence of ACEA A5/B5-04 and A5-02. Despite being told by SOPUS and their datasheet that PU does not meet ACEA, they print A5/B5-04 on the bottle which may or may not be accurate. Again, there's anti-wear performance left as far as we know, and at the same price there's no reason to not go for the one that we know for certain delivers the highest level.
Originally Posted By: vinu_neuro
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
.
Great. How does WSS-M2C946-A, which is what PP and PU are approved for, compare to M2C913-C.
I'm not sure, but compare Opel Dexos 2 to A5/B5-08, notably in wear performance. It's a shame that tool doesn't have more US relevant specs.
I think Dexos 2 is based on ACEA C3. Both are diesel specific. It would be nice if they had more US specific specs.
An oil that meets M2C913-C (the one in your first screenshot) is European M1 0W-30. Interestingly, it's got 1000ppm phosphorous, API SL.
Originally Posted By: 4ever4d
Because the PCMO used in NA approved by API is most often more than good enough for the majority of the population and their daily drivers. There are "better" speciality oils for situational exceptions.JMO
cchase summed it up nicely. Most people couldn't care less because they aren't aware. But we're on an oil forum and obsess about the minutia that delivers better wear performance. When you see such a massive difference in oil spec performance, there's no reason not use the one that undoubtedly delivers performance to the current highest standard according to people who have the resources to test it. PP, PU and M1 all cost pretty much the same on sale.
As far as the ACEA post-2002 gasoline/diesel combination go.. at least half the cars in Europe are still gasoline so these specs are very much relevant. I believe they will have devised the tests in a manner to be applicable to both.
PP does meet ACEA. Though so far we've only seen evidence of ACEA A5/B5-04 and A5-02. Despite being told by SOPUS and their datasheet that PU does not meet ACEA, they print A5/B5-04 on the bottle which may or may not be accurate. Again, there's anti-wear performance left as far as we know, and at the same price there's no reason to not go for the one that we know for certain delivers the highest level.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: vinu_neuro
As far as the ACEA post-2002 gasoline/diesel combination go.. at least half the cars in Europe are still gasoline so these specs are very much relevant. I believe they will have devised the tests in a manner to be applicable to both.
What makes you believe that to be the case? I looked at the test parameters, and I see no evidence to support that conclusion. 5-7% soot and 5% fuel dilution with 5% FAME do not seem relevant to a gasoline engine. Maybe I'm missing something in the testing protocol?
As far as the ACEA post-2002 gasoline/diesel combination go.. at least half the cars in Europe are still gasoline so these specs are very much relevant. I believe they will have devised the tests in a manner to be applicable to both.
What makes you believe that to be the case? I looked at the test parameters, and I see no evidence to support that conclusion. 5-7% soot and 5% fuel dilution with 5% FAME do not seem relevant to a gasoline engine. Maybe I'm missing something in the testing protocol?
vinu,
We don't "know" which oil delivers the lowest wear in an engine.
We only know which oil seems to perform better in the test protocols established, which are a mere surrogate for all of the engines out there in service.
This is an important distinction, and should not be overlooked.
It would not be hard to develop a test protocol allowing Ultra to trump every other 5W-30 on the planet.
The question would be how relevant the results were.
The Lubrizol tool is a fun thing to play with.
I've played with it myself, but you should also remember the caveats Lubrizol publishes with the tool, and I think the scale used may be disproportionate and overstates the relative differences.
We don't "know" which oil delivers the lowest wear in an engine.
We only know which oil seems to perform better in the test protocols established, which are a mere surrogate for all of the engines out there in service.
This is an important distinction, and should not be overlooked.
It would not be hard to develop a test protocol allowing Ultra to trump every other 5W-30 on the planet.
The question would be how relevant the results were.
The Lubrizol tool is a fun thing to play with.
I've played with it myself, but you should also remember the caveats Lubrizol publishes with the tool, and I think the scale used may be disproportionate and overstates the relative differences.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
vinu,
It would not be hard to develop a test protocol allowing Ultra to trump every other 5W-30 on the planet.
You bring up some very good points. The quote above sticks in my mind. It reminds me of the 4 ball wear test, or that crank thing Lucas uses to sell their Oil Stablilizer. In the end its all marketing.
vinu,
It would not be hard to develop a test protocol allowing Ultra to trump every other 5W-30 on the planet.
You bring up some very good points. The quote above sticks in my mind. It reminds me of the 4 ball wear test, or that crank thing Lucas uses to sell their Oil Stablilizer. In the end its all marketing.
I changed the oil in all 3 of our cars in the past couple days. That's 3 5qt Jugs of 5W-30 from wally world, as well as 2 quart bottles. The three 5qt jugs listed A5/B5 but the quart bottles only listed A5. ???
Originally Posted By: Nick R
I changed the oil in all 3 of our cars in the past couple days. That's 3 5qt Jugs of 5W-30 from wally world, as well as 2 quart bottles. The three 5qt jugs listed A5/B5 but the quart bottles only listed A5. ???
My Pic is from a Quart bottle, (only got them as they were $2.99 each) so it looks like the Quart bottles gets the weaker oil.
I changed the oil in all 3 of our cars in the past couple days. That's 3 5qt Jugs of 5W-30 from wally world, as well as 2 quart bottles. The three 5qt jugs listed A5/B5 but the quart bottles only listed A5. ???
My Pic is from a Quart bottle, (only got them as they were $2.99 each) so it looks like the Quart bottles gets the weaker oil.
I have found this discussion to be very informative.
My vehicle uses xW20, so I see that ACEA A1/B1 provides better wear and sludge control than GF-5 and GF-5 provides better fuel economy and oxidative thickening control than A1/B1. So, I'm going to be looking for a 20 wt that is both GF-5 and A1/B1. If I can find that in a SOPUS product, then I'll consider it.
My vehicle uses xW20, so I see that ACEA A1/B1 provides better wear and sludge control than GF-5 and GF-5 provides better fuel economy and oxidative thickening control than A1/B1. So, I'm going to be looking for a 20 wt that is both GF-5 and A1/B1. If I can find that in a SOPUS product, then I'll consider it.
This thread raises interesting questions.
1)How many plants/lines are M1/PP/PU produced on?
1a)Would a different plant produce different spec oil?
2)What copy editor lost their job if this is simply a printing mistake?
3)Has anyone seen variation on M1 bottles?
I am sure that any of these oils would do fine in my car. The strange bit that I still ponder is the SOPUS recommendation of PP over PU for my G37.
1)How many plants/lines are M1/PP/PU produced on?
1a)Would a different plant produce different spec oil?
2)What copy editor lost their job if this is simply a printing mistake?
3)Has anyone seen variation on M1 bottles?
I am sure that any of these oils would do fine in my car. The strange bit that I still ponder is the SOPUS recommendation of PP over PU for my G37.
Originally Posted By: OldCowboy
I have found this discussion to be very informative.
My vehicle uses xW20, so I see that ACEA A1/B1 provides better wear and sludge control than GF-5 and GF-5 provides better fuel economy and oxidative thickening control than A1/B1. So, I'm going to be looking for a 20 wt that is both GF-5 and A1/B1. If I can find that in a SOPUS product, then I'll consider it.
M1 0w20 meets ACEA A1/B1-08, GM 4718M, SN, GF-5 and has the best cold weather performance as well. Right now there is no better 20wt IMO.
I have found this discussion to be very informative.
My vehicle uses xW20, so I see that ACEA A1/B1 provides better wear and sludge control than GF-5 and GF-5 provides better fuel economy and oxidative thickening control than A1/B1. So, I'm going to be looking for a 20 wt that is both GF-5 and A1/B1. If I can find that in a SOPUS product, then I'll consider it.
M1 0w20 meets ACEA A1/B1-08, GM 4718M, SN, GF-5 and has the best cold weather performance as well. Right now there is no better 20wt IMO.
After reading all this interesting stuff, I still think of the NYC Taxi Test, Consumer Reports found after tearing down the engines there was absolutly no difference in wear re. Syn or Convential. Tons of threads supporting how that happened never proved the tearing down, measuring, was not accurate. And the thread re. the Corollas with 200k on bulk dino!!Who is to say??? However makes good reading, its worth = is really how you look at things.
Aren't Corollas known to be sludgers? Also, some engines are easier on oil than oils. I don't know what car CR tested but what if it had been Hondas, which are notoriously easy on oil or the Infinity G35, which are notoriously hard on oil. I think the point of the thread is that if you can get two oils for the same price and they both meet the minimum specs but one also meets superior specs and then it would seem logical to get the superior oil.
- Status
Similar threads
