Synthetic Blends, redemption through dexos?

[bigt61]

Originally Posted By: otis24
Originally Posted By: wemay
Originally Posted By: otis24
... Many oils will meet or exceed GM's specifications. They just have not paid GM bribery charges to say on their label that they are "Dexos Approved".


Which ones?


Probably almost everyone with an API approval. I would hazard to say that you could pick almost any name brand oil on the shelf. The only thing standing between them and a Dexos Approval is a check made out to GM for the right to tattoo their bottles "Dexos Approved".

I disagree. Many would not pass the NOACK alone, not to mention the other higher standards of Dexos1.

 

[bigt61]

Originally Posted By: bullwinkle
Ashland/Valvoline passing on the Dexos 1 label is a purely financial decision, they don't want to pay the royalty-and Dexos has (somewhat) opened a can of worms in the motor oil certification business. Every company now seems to have exotic oil certifications, such as FIAT's new specs for high performance engines, etc.-wondering if they all cost a royalty as Dexos does?

Old news and no longer correct. Valvoline has many Dexos offerings:

Valvoline DuraBlend® Ashland Inc. dexos1 5W-20 Global
Valvoline MaxLife® Ashland Inc. dexos1 5W-20 Global
Valvoline NextGen™ MaxLife® Ashland Inc. dexos1 5W-20 Global
Valvoline MaxLife® Ashland Inc. dexos1 5W-30 Global
Valvoline NextGen™ MaxLife® Ashland Inc. dexos1 5W-30 Global
Valvoline MaxLife® Full Synthetic Ashland Inc. dexos1 0W-20 Global
Valvoline SynPower® Full Synthetic Ashland Inc. dexos1 0W-20 Global
Valvoline SynPower® Full Synthetic Ashland Inc. dexos1 5W-20 Global
Valvoline MaxLife® Full Synthetic Ashland Inc. dexos1 5W-20 Global
Valvoline DuraBlend® Ashland Inc. dexos1 5W-30 Global
Valvoline SynPower® Full Synthetic Ashland Inc. dexos1 5W-30 Global
Valvoline MaxLife® Full Synthetic Ashland Inc. dexos1 5W-30 Global

 

[wemay]

Originally Posted By: bigt61
Originally Posted By: otis24
Originally Posted By: wemay
Originally Posted By: otis24
... Many oils will meet or exceed GM's specifications. They just have not paid GM bribery charges to say on their label that they are "Dexos Approved".


Which ones?


Probably almost everyone with an API approval. I would hazard to say that you could pick almost any name brand oil on the shelf. The only thing standing between them and a Dexos Approval is a check made out to GM for the right to tattoo their bottles "Dexos Approved".

I disagree. Many would not pass the NOACK alone, not to mention the other higher standards of Dexos1.


Agreed. I have never believed the performance standard could be reached by 'many' dino oils if any to this point. If any of these companies was the first to produce this, it would be a windfall for their marketing and profits.

 

[Hokiefyd]

dexos1's NOACK limit is 13.0%. It also has a minimum VI of 150. Almost every conventional already has a VI of over 150, and many are very close to the NOACK of 13.0%. This test group from PQIA is from back in 2011:

http://www.pqiamerica.com/testresultssep2011.html

And Petro-Canada Supreme, Mobil Clean 5000, and Castrol GTX all either meet those minimums or are outside them by a very small margin.

http://www.pqiamerica.com/testresults3a.html

Exxon Super Flow and Havoline DS are also there or just barely over.

I'm certainly not saying that those are the only requirements of dexos1, but in terms of NOACK and VI, some low-price oil is already there.

I believe no company has an interest in pricing dexos1 at normal "conventional" prices; margins would be slim and their "synthetic blend" product shelf space would dry up.

 

[wemay]

Like you said Hokiefyd, we don't really know what goes into making an oil Dexos approved other than Noack/VII and a fee. But i speculate there are other benchmarks that need to be met.

 

[Greasymechtech]

Lubrizols blend for dexos performance recommends >75% group III and
Makes me wonder how low of a blend you can go using PAO, GTL, PoE, DiE, premium/selected group II+/III... base blends to meet that dexos performance requirement.

The additive suppliers can give blenders formula recommendations for sn/gf5 and dexos. I don't foresee a conventional dexos oil.

Dexos vs nondexos synthblend is a no brainer if you cant budget a full synthetic.

Something to ponder, can a dexos blend outperform a nondexos sn/gf5 full synth? The performance of the oil is more important than base oils used and marketing terms.

 

[Nyogtha]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
dexos1's NOACK limit is 13.0%. It also has a minimum VI of 150. Almost every conventional already has a VI of over 150, and many are very close to the NOACK of 13.0%. This test group from PQIA is from back in 2011:

http://www.pqiamerica.com/testresultssep2011.html

And Petro-Canada Supreme, Mobil Clean 5000, and Castrol GTX all either meet those minimums or are outside them by a very small margin.

http://www.pqiamerica.com/testresults3a.html

Exxon Super Flow and Havoline DS are also there or just barely over.

I'm certainly not saying that those are the only requirements of dexos1, but in terms of NOACK and VI, some low-price oil is already there.

I believe no company has an interest in pricing dexos1 at normal "conventional" prices; margins would be slim and their "synthetic blend" product shelf space would dry up.


Exxon Superflo isn't manufactured / bottled any more. I bought a bunch on closeout at AZ when I lived in SE Louisiana around 2009 IIRC.

http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Car_Care/AskMobil/Exxon_Superflo_Discontinued.aspx

5W-20 QSGB & PYB have considerably lower NOACK results per PQIA testing.

http://www.pqiamerica.com/Nov2013/QuakerState.htm

http://www.pqiamerica.com/Nov2013/Pennzoil.htm

Maybe these could meet dexos specs?

 

[wemay]

The Noack numbers for the PYB and QSGB 5w20 attributed to PQIA are worlds appart from Shell's own PDS numbers. I'm not sure what we're to take away from that. Not saying pqia's numbers were wrong, i believe the results are valid for that particular sample. I just dont know how consistent those numbers are when again, the pds numbers are so different.

 

[Nyogtha]

But insofar as an oil labeled as 'conventional' meeting dexos specs, do those potentially qualify even though they're not labeled as such?

I confess I haven't examined the dexos specs in detail because we don't own a vehicle requiring those specs. I'd just noticed these 2 'conventional' oils as tested by PQIA met the VI and NOACK limits posted in this thread.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: wemay
Like you said Hokiefyd, we don't really know what goes into making an oil Dexos approved other than Noack/VII and a fee. But i speculate there are other benchmarks that need to be met.

Absolutely; there are other performance requirements, too. Wear, sludge, etc.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
But insofar as an oil labeled as 'conventional' meeting dexos specs, do those potentially qualify even though they're not labeled as such?


If they're not labeled as dexos1-certified, then no, they're not certified. The discussion here is whether an oil marketed as a "conventional" oil could pass the dexos1 performance requirements if it were tested. My opinion is that some "conventional" oils could, but that oil blenders have instead made the marketing decision to seek dexos1 certification on their mid- and upper-tier oils, presumably to take advantage of the potentially higher margins on those oils. I personally don't think there's much of a technical limitation of current "conventional" oils. That is, of course, just my opinion.

 

[Nyogtha]

Interesting - you quoted what I asked, then answered in terms of certification, and gave your spin on what this thread is about, which is exactly what I asked and you copied.

So once again would these two elections meet dexos specs (with again no mention from me regarding certification).

 

[Solarent]

A lot of it comes down to cost as well. With a well selected base stock slate which is mostly focused on Group II oils and some good additives, Dexos is for sure obtainable, but then the question comes down to how much does it cost the blender to hit those targets by additization vs blending in some Group III. Would the consumer pay more to help ofset these extra charges? Or if as Hokiefyd has said, the extra margin in synthetic oils (although not huge) can help to recover extra costs associated with full certification, is that the more economical choice?

 

[Nate1979]

Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
Interesting - you quoted what I asked, then answered in terms of certification, and gave your spin on what this thread is about, which is exactly what I asked and you copied.

So once again would these two elections meet dexos specs (with again no mention from me regarding certification).


Well since no one on this site likely has access to the actual oil performance specs which is internal only to the oil companies you can only get speculative answers.

 

[Nyogtha]

Both such samples the links I posted to are well below the dexos NOACK volatility limit of 13% posted in this thread and both samples show VI > 150 posted in this thread.

But is that for 5W-20?

QSGB 5W-20 NOACK volatility 7.8% VI 156 purchased 12/4/2013 at Pep Boys by PQIA data

PYB 5W-20 NOACK volatility 6.5% VI 155 purchased 12/4/2013 at Pep Boys by PQIA data

To speculate on 2009 PQIA data including brands that are no longer manufactured to me is considerably less relevant than data from less than a year ago.

 

[bullwinkle]

Originally Posted By: bigt61
Originally Posted By: bullwinkle
Ashland/Valvoline passing on the Dexos 1 label is a purely financial decision, they don't want to pay the royalty-and Dexos has (somewhat) opened a can of worms in the motor oil certification business. Every company now seems to have exotic oil certifications, such as FIAT's new specs for high performance engines, etc.-wondering if they all cost a royalty as Dexos does?

Old news and no longer correct. Valvoline has many Dexos offerings:

Valvoline DuraBlend® Ashland Inc. dexos1 5W-20 Global
Valvoline MaxLife® Ashland Inc. dexos1 5W-20 Global
Valvoline NextGen™ MaxLife® Ashland Inc. dexos1 5W-20 Global
Valvoline MaxLife® Ashland Inc. dexos1 5W-30 Global
Valvoline NextGen™ MaxLife® Ashland Inc. dexos1 5W-30 Global
Valvoline MaxLife® Full Synthetic Ashland Inc. dexos1 0W-20 Global
Valvoline SynPower® Full Synthetic Ashland Inc. dexos1 0W-20 Global
Valvoline SynPower® Full Synthetic Ashland Inc. dexos1 5W-20 Global
Valvoline MaxLife® Full Synthetic Ashland Inc. dexos1 5W-20 Global
Valvoline DuraBlend® Ashland Inc. dexos1 5W-30 Global
Valvoline SynPower® Full Synthetic Ashland Inc. dexos1 5W-30 Global
Valvoline MaxLife® Full Synthetic Ashland Inc. dexos1 5W-30 Global
You're right, I hadn't seen the (recent?) PDS change, including NG ML 10W40's Fiat spec approval. Should put some of the NextGen worries to rest.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: wemay
The Noack numbers for the PYB and QSGB 5w20 attributed to PQIA are worlds appart from Shell's own PDS numbers. I'm not sure what we're to take away from that.

Exactly. Considering that doesn't conform to SOPUS's data sheet (for what it's worth), the product could be a new formulation, a temporary thing, or an outlier.

 

[Nyogtha]

But that's not the context of the question whether conventional oils could meet dexos specs