Schaeffers 7000 5W-30 SL/GF-3 blend

[jsharp]

Schaeffers 7000 5W-30 SL/GF-3 blend
Lab - Butler
Thanks to Stinky Peterson

code:

---

Cu - 0

Fe - 1

Cr - 0

Ni - 0

Ti - 0

Ag - 0

Pb - 0

Sn - 1

Al - 2

Si - 4

Na - 0

K - 0

Mo - 125

B - 1

Ba - 1

Ca - 1687

Mg - 9

Mn - 0

P - 800

Zn - 902



cSt @ 100C - 11.2

TBN - 8



Particle counts per 1ml



>5u - 9731

>10u - 837

>15u - 100

>20u - 22

>25u - 9

>50u - 2

>75u - 1

>100u - 1



Ferrous debris - 16

ISO code - 20/14

PVi - 2



No antifreeze, fuel, or water.

---

It looks unremarkable, but every UOA on the board with this oil looks pretty good so I wanted to try it. I'll have a UOA from this same batch of oil at some point in the near future.

 

[medic]

Wow, look at that particle count! What is all that stuff?

 

[sully]

Wonder if this is the new GF-4 SM with an old bottle label. Sure looks like some of the new formulations we've been seeing lately.

 

[sully]

The GF-4 SM data sheet shows 0.076% phosphorous. If my memory serves me correctly I think I remember the GF-3 being around 0.09%. But I could be mistaken. I guess it could go either way with batch variations. My money says it's GF-4 if it was purchased recently. I have a couple of cases of 5W30 I got back around the first of the year lot #SL 21K4 P2 166. Maybe one of our Schaeffer reps can shed some light on this.

[ February 25, 2005, 07:41 AM: Message edited by: sully ]

 

[buster]

FYI: the 5w/10w-30 do not meet the ACEA A3 spec. Not that it matters all that much but they have corrected their PDS for these oils. 3.1/3.2 now.

 

[jsharp]

I just got this case and it's marked in a similar manner to what sully has. 5W-30 SL 21K4P2 701 166 and all the bottles have the SL GF-3 labels. I agree that it looks similar to the newer formulations we've been seeing though.

I'm not familiar with the blending process, but it seems like we don't see abrupt changes in fomulations. Instead, we see gradual changes that over a few lots end up completely different. I wonder if this is one of the "almost SM/GF-4 but not quite there" lots that are part of the tuning of the process before it's finalized? That would mske sense to me.

And for all the GC lovers here - This Schaeffers stuff is also green

but without the gold sheen that GC has.

 

[Bio-T]

Schaeffers 5W30

You can put your mouse in the lower right hand corner and an expand box will show, then click it and it will read normal.

 

[GregH]

Alright guys I am prepared to be flamed but in my lack of knowledge on oil matters, does this not look like a pitiful VOA. I use Schaeffers but it looks low in antimony , low in calcium. How can it show such good wear numbers unless there is a lot of stuff there not showing up in the test? Just asking honest questions, not trying to be a pain!
Another thing, on most other oil brands this VOA would have been jumped on, at least I think that is what I have seen, and called woefully inadequate! Correct me if I am wrong.
GregH

 

[sully]

No flame suit needed, as with alot of the new oil formulations we're seeing lately the VOA does not tell the whole story. As for antimony, how can you say it's low since it is not tested for in this VOA. I think alot of the new formulations are going to be hard to judge by a VOA. Judging by the UOA's on this board, this oil has produced excellent results. IMHO

[ February 28, 2005, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: sully ]

 

[jsharp]

I agree that this oil looks weak with no more than we're seeing in the VOA. Lots of the SM/GF-4 oils do. This looks like it's SLM/GF-3 1/2, part of the tuning process to get the blending nailed down for GF-4. I doubt it's what we would have seen six months or a year ago.

A friend is going to run this in a new 4.0L Ford Ranger and it's limited to 5K changes because of warranty issues. I'll have a UOA of it in a few months and we'll see how it holds up.

My bet is that it'll be just fine...

 

[jsharp]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 59 Vetteman:
Schaeffers 5W30

You can put your mouse in the lower right hand corner and an expand box will show, then click it and it will read normal.

---

Thanks for that. I sent Stinky a PM hoping we could get a file of the report. The Butler reports are really nice. My typing in the first post doesn't do them justice...

 

[Bio-T]

jsharp, I will post it here for you, makes it easier:

 

[sully]

GregH, I to thought this VOA would have generated more comments. I think some of us may just be getting use to seeing these seemingly low additive packs in the new formulations.

 

[GregH]

Sully, your are right, I looked at pb and saw sb in my mind. Not tested for indeed. Makes me feel better already but still looks a bit on the week side. Me thinks I will go with the Mobil 7500 and not look back, at least until I do my first UOA and find out bad things. Thanks for catching my mistake.
GregH

 

[sully]

quote:

---

Originally posted by GregH:
Sully, your are right, I looked at pb and saw sb in my mind. Not tested for indeed. Makes me feel better already but still looks a bit on the week side. Me thinks I will go with the Mobil 7500 and not look back, at least until I do my first UOA and find out bad things. Thanks for catching my mistake.
GregH

---

No problem Greg, IMHO I think either one of these oils will probably do a fine job. As always we can confirm performance with a UOA and a Dyson Analysis.