Lubrizol Relative Performance Comparison Tool

[Hokiefyd]

I'm speaking of the one available here: Lubrizol Relative Performance Tool

The way I read it, the spider chart literally compares performance among the different oil specifications. That is, ILSAC GF-5 and API SN both have "wear" performance of 3. ACEA A1/B1-10 has a "wear" performance of 5. Should that literally be taken that the ACEA specification allows 3/5ths of the wear that the ILSAC and API specifications do?

Similar question on "sludge". API SN is 1, while ACEA A1/B1-10 is 7.

It appears that even the ACEA A1 spec is significantly more protective of the engine than API SN. Am I reading this correctly?

This kind of goes along with another recent thread, regarding if the performance difference of ACEA A1 over API SN is significant enough so that most people should feel compelled to use it vs. oils only meeting the API specification. But I wanted to separate this thread out from the other one and ask the question about the Lubrizol tool in particular.

 

[NateDN10]

All I have to add is that there's text at the bottom of the tool that says,
Quote:
The performance charts are not a literal translation of a performance specification and should not be used as a replacement for evaluating engine oil performance in accordance with the relevant vehicle manufacturer's requirements.


But even if it's an approximately accurate comparison, I'm interested in this as well.

 

[carwreck]

I don't know. But here are some ways to compare the spider and actual values.

Lubrizol also provides the actual numerical specs and spider on the same page.
example A5/B5-10: lubrizol /EngineOilAdditives/ACEA/Sequences/ACEA-A5B5-10.html

Afton handbook provides numerical columns ACEA, API, OEM...
aftonchemical /Lists/Brochure/Attachments/40/Afton_Lube_Spec_Handbook_2012.pdf

This chart compares GF-4, GF-5, and dexos

 

[Phishin]

From the chart above, it appears Dexos 1 is the superior grade.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
It appears that even the ACEA A1 spec is significantly more protective of the engine than API SN. Am I reading this correctly?


Within reason. It may only manifest itself over an extended OCI. One certainly isn't going to get A1 in a conventional. I would imagine a synthetic meeting dexos1 versus one meeting A1/B1 A5/B5 aren't likely that far apart, and many meet both dexos1 and ACEA specs (M1 and PP come to mind right away).

 

[Hokiefyd]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but PP doesn't actually list any ACEA specs on its bottle or website. One reason I started to wonder...just because it may not show it, does that necessarily mean that it doesn't meet it?

 

[blackman777]

PP passes dexos1 which is much more stringent than API.

I noticed Dexos2 is not as good as VW507. But dexos1 is better than API SN. That's a really useful chart for checking-out the best specs.

 

[OVERKILL]

Looks like MB 229.51 is the most demanding.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Correct me if I'm wrong, but PP doesn't actually list any ACEA specs on its bottle or website.


I did see it on a PDS. I don't recall if it was an old one, a new one, a Canadian version, or an American one.

 

[blackman777]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Looks like MB 229.51 is the most demanding.


On the oil, yes, but Porsche C30 and VW507 are better for the customer. The MB 229.51 sacrifices wear protection to gain more fuel economy, while the Porsche and VW specs have reduced wear.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: blackman777
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Looks like MB 229.51 is the most demanding.


On the oil, yes, but Porsche C30 and VW507 are better for the customer. The MB 229.51 sacrifices wear protection to gain more fuel economy, while the Porsche and VW specs have reduced wear.


Yet the VW 505.01 spec is about on-par with the MB spec with the exception of piston deposits, where the MB spec is apparently better.

The Porsche C30 spec certainly appears to focus on wear though!

I will also add that it is sort of funny to compare the GF-5, API SN and to some extent the ACEA stuff to the manufacturer approvals, as it clearly demonstrates how much harder the manufacturer certs are to obtain, how much more demanding they are and how important that can be for an application.

 

[WMSmotorhead]

It's not bad... but not all the Ford specs are up there to pick from.

 

[JustN89]

There are plenty of cars out there that go many, many miles in spite of their owners and their maintenance programs. The dexos rating is more stringent than the API SN rating, so it's not GM trying to money grab, rather demanding a better performing oil to maintain their warranty.

 

[tundraotto]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Looks like MB 229.51 is the most demanding.


MB 229.71 is even more so.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted by Hokiefyd
The way I read it, the spider chart literally compares relative performance among the different oil specifications.

No, the Lubrizol relative-performance comparison tool does not and can not compare different oil specifications.

It can only compare the test results for a given test, and if the tests used are different for the two specs, the comparison is apples vs. oranges.

 

[ka9mnx]

Thanks for that Gokhan. This has come up several times recently while I sit here and bite my tongue.

 

[jbutch]

Originally Posted by tundraotto
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Looks like MB 229.51 is the most demanding.


MB 229.71 is even more so.



Apples vs oranges

MB 229.51 is 30 or 40 grade oils
MB 229.71 is 0w-20 only

They are in no way comparable.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by tundraotto
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Looks like MB 229.51 is the most demanding.


MB 229.71 is even more so.


That comment was made 7 years ago...

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by tundraotto
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Looks like MB 229.51 is the most demanding.

MB 229.71 is even more so.

That comment was made 7 years ago...

Actually MB 229.51 and MB 229.71 can be directly compared, as they use the same tests.

Afton recently updated its specification handbook. (It was about time.) 229.71 uses significantly better base oil and/or significantly more antioxidant than 229.51. So, yes, 229.71 is a significantly better oil spec than 229.51.

However, 229.71 is xW-20 (HTHS viscosity = 2.6 - 2.8 cP) whereas 229.51 is thick oil (HTHS viscosity ⥠3.5 cP); so, for most people which spec is better is a moot issue.

Afton Specification Handbook is a lot more useful for comparing specs than the Lubrizol spec-comparison tool:

https://www.aftonchemical.com/Insights-and-Resources/Documents/Specification-Handbook

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by tundraotto
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Looks like MB 229.51 is the most demanding.

MB 229.71 is even more so.

That comment was made 7 years ago...

Actually MB 229.51 and MB 229.71 can be directly compared, as they use the same tests.

Afton recently updated its specification handbook. (It was about time.) 229.71 uses significantly better base oil and/or significantly more antioxidant than 229.51. So, yes, 229.71 is a significantly better oil spec than 229.51.

However, 229.71 is xW-20 (HTHS viscosity = 2.6 - 2.8 cP) whereas 229.51 is thick oil (HTHS viscosity ⥠3.5 cP); so, for most people which spec is better is a moot issue.

Afton Specification Handbook is a lot more useful for comparing specs than the Lubrizol spec-comparison tool:

https://www.aftonchemical.com/Insights-and-Resources/Documents/Specification-Handbook


I don't believe 229.71 existing in the tool when I made that comment 7 years ago was my point.