Thanks for sharing tiredTrucker. Doesn't Shaeffers have moly in it? Anyhow, definitely not going to be afraid to use 15w40 over 5w40 when that runs out. I am slowly coming around to potentially trying 10w30 like tiredTrucker is using. Thanks for sharing your experience TiredTrucker.
5w-40 vs. 15w-40 the real truth?
- Thread starter mbacfp
- Start date
- Status
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Don't underestimate the additive package. The additive package is what makes an oil a motor oil. It's more important than the base oil.
this ...
This ...
THIS !!!
Ever notice that conventional lubes do every bit as well in short-to-moderate OCIs as any super-duper syn? Ever realize wear and contamination control exhibit to an equal degree the protection needed in most any BITOGer's UOA? Ever discover that "normal" products are just as capable as premium products in typical life applications, and even "severe" service does not bring out any disparity in terms of wear rates?
Jim Fitch from Noria has mentioned on more than one occasion that the add-pack is the most important thing that goes into the bottle. While base stocks can affect the long term performance, it is the chemistry of the additives that has more effect from the onset.
And underlying truth is that there is more than one way to get to low wear and good contamination control. There are many different add-pack formulations in all manner of brands and grades of lubes. But they all pretty much achieve the same task, and do so well. Whereas you may personally favor brand X, grade Y, or additive Z, your engine really does not care as long as the total packaged product is complimentary to the goal of reducing wear and controlling contamination. Go look at all the VOAs at the PQIA site, and then show me (if you dare to try) the causation effect of any particular brand or additive that clearly demonstrates a "better" result of wear or contamination control in a true statistical sense. I simply, utterly dare you to try and see if you can do it.
Too many of you focus on the inputs; what's in the bottle, as if some grade, base stock or additive is the only way to success. I focus on results; what do UOAs, PCs, and teardown component analysis tell us? Generally, there are many roads to the same destination.
I say again; the quote above is certainly one key premise in understanding the overall success in a lubrication maintenance program. It is not the only thing, but it one key thing.
Don't underestimate the additive package. The additive package is what makes an oil a motor oil. It's more important than the base oil.
this ...
This ...
THIS !!!
Ever notice that conventional lubes do every bit as well in short-to-moderate OCIs as any super-duper syn? Ever realize wear and contamination control exhibit to an equal degree the protection needed in most any BITOGer's UOA? Ever discover that "normal" products are just as capable as premium products in typical life applications, and even "severe" service does not bring out any disparity in terms of wear rates?
Jim Fitch from Noria has mentioned on more than one occasion that the add-pack is the most important thing that goes into the bottle. While base stocks can affect the long term performance, it is the chemistry of the additives that has more effect from the onset.
And underlying truth is that there is more than one way to get to low wear and good contamination control. There are many different add-pack formulations in all manner of brands and grades of lubes. But they all pretty much achieve the same task, and do so well. Whereas you may personally favor brand X, grade Y, or additive Z, your engine really does not care as long as the total packaged product is complimentary to the goal of reducing wear and controlling contamination. Go look at all the VOAs at the PQIA site, and then show me (if you dare to try) the causation effect of any particular brand or additive that clearly demonstrates a "better" result of wear or contamination control in a true statistical sense. I simply, utterly dare you to try and see if you can do it.
Too many of you focus on the inputs; what's in the bottle, as if some grade, base stock or additive is the only way to success. I focus on results; what do UOAs, PCs, and teardown component analysis tell us? Generally, there are many roads to the same destination.
I say again; the quote above is certainly one key premise in understanding the overall success in a lubrication maintenance program. It is not the only thing, but it one key thing.
Last edited:
I think half the problem is people associating "conventional" engine oils with old base oil group I technology. If we start out with a group II and require the finished product to hit a winter grade "W" target, there is more than one way to achieve that goal.
Blend (or mix) in all manner of VMs, VIIs, PPDs plus a shot of your favorite synthetic base oil type, and there you have it. Major engine oil companies are just as happy taking your money at the fuel pump and are the most pragmatic in assessment of synthetic lubricants. I like watching videos of engines that ran for 20,000+ hours on conventional engine oil and still have the cylinder liner cross-hatch showing. Would a change in the base oil type to synthetic made a difference in the wear rate in that application? If so, how many years of continuous operation would it take to see the difference?
Personally I'm not extending my drain interval and I don't own a vehicle that specifies synthetic engine oil. Except for winter cold start performance where a 0WXX is a blessing, I pass jumping on the synthetic bandwagon.
Blend (or mix) in all manner of VMs, VIIs, PPDs plus a shot of your favorite synthetic base oil type, and there you have it. Major engine oil companies are just as happy taking your money at the fuel pump and are the most pragmatic in assessment of synthetic lubricants. I like watching videos of engines that ran for 20,000+ hours on conventional engine oil and still have the cylinder liner cross-hatch showing. Would a change in the base oil type to synthetic made a difference in the wear rate in that application? If so, how many years of continuous operation would it take to see the difference?
Personally I'm not extending my drain interval and I don't own a vehicle that specifies synthetic engine oil. Except for winter cold start performance where a 0WXX is a blessing, I pass jumping on the synthetic bandwagon.
Yes. A good 15w-40 will meet ACEA E7, E9 and have a bunch of builder approvals, too.
Originally Posted By: mbacfp
Thanks for sharing tiredTrucker. Doesn't Shaeffers have moly in it? Anyhow, definitely not going to be afraid to use 15w40 over 5w40 when that runs out. I am slowly coming around to potentially trying 10w30 like tiredTrucker is using. Thanks for sharing your experience TiredTrucker.
Schaeffer is known for using a healthy dose of moly in its oil. The Zinc levels and other stuff is pretty good also. I think they press the edge of the envelope while still maintaining CJ-4 specs. I was a little leary about using a 10w30 in my pre-egr 12.7L Detroit 60, but I have since gotten over that. It was allowed as an option in the Detroit Lube Manual, but I just didn't consider it before. All of the heavy diesel OEM's are factory filling with 10w30 now.
Thanks for sharing tiredTrucker. Doesn't Shaeffers have moly in it? Anyhow, definitely not going to be afraid to use 15w40 over 5w40 when that runs out. I am slowly coming around to potentially trying 10w30 like tiredTrucker is using. Thanks for sharing your experience TiredTrucker.
Schaeffer is known for using a healthy dose of moly in its oil. The Zinc levels and other stuff is pretty good also. I think they press the edge of the envelope while still maintaining CJ-4 specs. I was a little leary about using a 10w30 in my pre-egr 12.7L Detroit 60, but I have since gotten over that. It was allowed as an option in the Detroit Lube Manual, but I just didn't consider it before. All of the heavy diesel OEM's are factory filling with 10w30 now.
All I know is my Honda TRX680 loves the Rotella 15/40.
I'm ready to start the Delvac 1 5/40 in my Toyota 2.4 through the winter, 10k OCI's and then back to Rotella 15/40 once the 0 degree nights are over.
Just think the add packs are higher value.
I'm ready to start the Delvac 1 5/40 in my Toyota 2.4 through the winter, 10k OCI's and then back to Rotella 15/40 once the 0 degree nights are over.
Just think the add packs are higher value.
While Mobil TDT and ESP have been mentioned, has anyone figured out what the Delvac 1 LE is comprised mostly of and how it looks on paper compared to the others. Have seen it frequently at truck stops.
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
While Mobil TDT and ESP have been mentioned, has anyone figured out what the Delvac 1 LE is comprised mostly of and how it looks on paper compared to the others. Have seen it frequently at truck stops.
SHC = Group III (likely the III+ Visom kind)
http://www.mobil.com/Germany-German/Lubes/PDS/EUDEDECVLMOMobil_Delvac_1_LE_5W-30.aspx
While Mobil TDT and ESP have been mentioned, has anyone figured out what the Delvac 1 LE is comprised mostly of and how it looks on paper compared to the others. Have seen it frequently at truck stops.
SHC = Group III (likely the III+ Visom kind)
http://www.mobil.com/Germany-German/Lubes/PDS/EUDEDECVLMOMobil_Delvac_1_LE_5W-30.aspx
How cheap is it down your way, TiredTrucker?
I haven't looked at pricing. The reason I was curious, was that Delvac ESP has a VI of 156 while the LE has a VI of 168. Just wondered if anyone had checked formulation.
Well, it's got all the certifications you can ask for. Up here, the price is right, too.
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
I haven't looked at pricing. The reason I was curious, was that Delvac ESP has a VI of 156 while the LE has a VI of 168. Just wondered if anyone had checked formulation.
Group III+ and GTL have higher base-stock VI than PAO. So, there is no surprise there.
I haven't looked at pricing. The reason I was curious, was that Delvac ESP has a VI of 156 while the LE has a VI of 168. Just wondered if anyone had checked formulation.
Group III+ and GTL have higher base-stock VI than PAO. So, there is no surprise there.
It was just a curiosity. The Schaeffer blend I use has a VI of 155. I am not motivated to use the Delvac stuff, though I don't have anything against it except price.
Originally Posted By: mbacfp
California at Napa regular price is $32 something a gallon....probably won't run it long term as is expensive. What is major difference between mobile td vs delvac?
That's high. My regular price is better than that, and we usually get screwed up here when it comes to oil prices. As for your latter question, assuming your referencing Mobil Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40 versus TDT 5w-40, the main difference are certifications met, aside from formulations being difference. TDT is more aimed at consumers, with Delvac 1 for commercial applications. TDT is usually cheap in the States. Up here, it decidedly is not.
California at Napa regular price is $32 something a gallon....probably won't run it long term as is expensive. What is major difference between mobile td vs delvac?
That's high. My regular price is better than that, and we usually get screwed up here when it comes to oil prices. As for your latter question, assuming your referencing Mobil Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40 versus TDT 5w-40, the main difference are certifications met, aside from formulations being difference. TDT is more aimed at consumers, with Delvac 1 for commercial applications. TDT is usually cheap in the States. Up here, it decidedly is not.
Thanks Garak,
Yes, very high. Probably won't use it if I have to pay regular price. I read somewhere that Delvac 5w-40 was more formulated for commercial application usage, long prolonged driving at highway speeds (which is what my application is) vs. TDT 5w-40 (consumer usage)...lots of stopping and starting (traffic, etc.). Not sure how that translates into the differing formulations?
In my area the cheapest 5w-40 is Shell Rotella T6 and Chevron Delo. Will probably be using either one of those on a longer term basis (assuming no sales come along - Delvac, etc.).
However, I have heard both negative and positive info on Shell Rotella T6. Is there anything I should be concerned with regarding Shell Rotella T6? Hope all is well.
Yes, very high. Probably won't use it if I have to pay regular price. I read somewhere that Delvac 5w-40 was more formulated for commercial application usage, long prolonged driving at highway speeds (which is what my application is) vs. TDT 5w-40 (consumer usage)...lots of stopping and starting (traffic, etc.). Not sure how that translates into the differing formulations?
In my area the cheapest 5w-40 is Shell Rotella T6 and Chevron Delo. Will probably be using either one of those on a longer term basis (assuming no sales come along - Delvac, etc.).
However, I have heard both negative and positive info on Shell Rotella T6. Is there anything I should be concerned with regarding Shell Rotella T6? Hope all is well.
Not a problem. There is nothing wrong with Shell Rotella T6, which is another fine choice. Delo is also a fine product.
Originally Posted By: mbacfp
A little off topic, but Cummins doesn't recommend synthetic oil for my Onan Diesel Generator. Manual states "...not recommended until after warranty." They recommend 15w-40 for year round use, which I have been doing.
Same issue. They want the thicker cushion at start-up...
A little off topic, but Cummins doesn't recommend synthetic oil for my Onan Diesel Generator. Manual states "...not recommended until after warranty." They recommend 15w-40 for year round use, which I have been doing.
Same issue. They want the thicker cushion at start-up...
- Status