Saying I'm wrong says so but doesnt give a definitive answer, they just say "science" and "special api testing" but nothing more, without going into more detail to explain why then its an opinion not an explanation. If you wont explain your side and make it an explanation then I have to go by analysis data as it gives me more info than an opinion.
CAM 2 SUPER HD 15W40 SYN BLEND CK-4/SN?
- Thread starter tchapps88
- Start date
MolaKule
Staff member
@tchapps88 The Borates in DI packages come in many compounded forms.
The Borate compounds are mainly cold temp anti-wear and friction reduction compounds in an ester carrier.
Some Borate compounds are multi-functional phosphorylated Borates so the phosphorus ppm readings can be elevated by those phosphorylated Borates.
Last edited:
e Hey Tschapps,,,explanation, reason, excuse, opinion etc are interchangeable things on the internet.. I dont know if you are right or wrong or where any of this thread going, but its apparent you picked a hill to fight on, but do you want to die on it or just take the easy way out and let it go?at some point if it was me, I'd let it go..
in the scheme of things none of this makes any difference as we are all adults and we are all going to do whatever we want anyway... no matter what any one else says and no matter what they think... right?
so let it go.
MolaKule
Staff member
What I am saying is what many others have said before me. There are no real scientific conclusions to be drawn by adding up ppm numbers from a $30 analysis or an oil properties PDS.
What specific scientific data are you seeking? You have not as yet told us nor answered my question--What data within those web sites are you attempting to point to? Please be specific.
Last edited:
What scientific properties and special api tests that make an analysis irrelevant?
MolaKule
Staff member
The oil properties analysis posted in a PDS and API/ASTM test results are all relevant in one specific way or another.
What is scientifically "irrelevant" is your insistence that adding up ppm numbers somehow gives you an indication of the performance of a formulated oil.
You STILL have not as yet told us nor answered my question--What data within those web sites are you attempting to point to? Please be specific.
that was my question, what tests do the api run that indicate the quality of oil? Posting of the links was unrelated.
The API does not run initial tests that result in granting a license. They do run tests later that will verify the manufacturer claims of performance.
Here are some of the API required tests, there are many more but these relate to quality. I ran several of them myself in college.
Sequence IIIG, massive series of tests including deposit formation (ASTM D7320)
Sequence IVA, cam wear (ASTM D6891)
Sequence VII, wear and shear stability (ASTM D6709)
ASTM D6557, corrosion resistance
ASTM D7097, piston deposit formation
SAE J300 massive tests including cranking and pumpability (low-temperature performance)
As I noted there are many more but these directly relate to quality.
Note that in all these tests not one of them is a $30 spectrographic analysis, nor do they add up the analysis results to come up with a "ranking". You're miles and miles away from even grasping what you're asking about much less understanding the outcome.
JHZR2
Staff member
Why dont you go pull up the listing of API mandated tests and outcomes. Afton has published a good guide for years.
Some are chemical tests, some are wear tests on certain components in reference engines, some are color or physical attributes on a coupon or material.
The balanced formulation of oil basestock and additives comes into play to achieve results.
VOA helps to look at the oil formulation in a basic sense. It lets you see the additives/formulation approach within reason. Of course it won’t see the other adds that don’t show up in these analyses.
UOA helps with trending and in some case, comparison. It can also flag in certain use cases, like specific engine families, if something isn’t right (e.g., fuel dilution).
Both are tools in the toolbox. Neither are all-powerful.
But the concept that you can just add up ppm of this and ppm of that, and it means anything, is just laughable. Especially when you do things like double count additives given the fact that one ppm of Zn and one ppm of P does the same function on the same bit of surface.
Let’s back up for just a bit, and try and understand why you thought those parts per million are actually relevant, and why they don’t add up.
A fully formulated oil has many additives. Each of those additives has elements making them up.
The performance of the oil, of this complex formulation, comes from how those additives work with that oil under the conditions found in an engine.
The problem with a spectrographic analysis, is that you’ve taken complex chemical compounds, which have different performance parameters, and broken them into their elemental components.
By way of analogy, that’s like taking a paragraph, and breaking each word down into letters.
The paragraph was either good writing, or it wasn’t, depending on what words were used, and how those words were arranged.
You cannot simply add up the numbers of each specific, alphabetic character, attribute significance to the frequency with which each letter shows up, and figure out if it was good writing.
I can reduce a human being to about seven dollars worth of basic elemental compounds. But it is how those compounds are arranged, and how they perform when in that complex arrangement, that matters, not the weight of carbon, or calcium, if I did a spectrographic analysis of you.
I could do the same thing with a car, reduce it to its basic elements, so much aluminum, so much iron, so much carbon. And if I were to then ascribe significance to the PPM of titanium, or the PPM of boron, or aluminum, it still wouldn’t tell you whether we were talking about a Kia or a Ferrari.
A spectrographic analysis simply cannot tell you those things.
So, the flaw in your reasoning - that a spectrographic analysis can determine performance - is that somehow you are ascribing significance to numbers that are truly meaningless.
What matters in evaluating a formulation, is how it performs in testing. The Spectrographic analysis is interesting, but it does not indicate what you are claiming it does. It is a reduction of something complex into basic parts and that doesn’t tell you much about how well those parts work together.
Last edited:
MolaKule
Staff member
Ok, so in the future do not post links without a comment. Doing that tells us nothing. Be more clear with your statements in the future as to what you're asking.
As JHZR2, Astro14 and kschachn commented, various tests can be run on a formulated oil to determine whether or not it meets certain criteria. For an oil to meet certain engine specifications, whether it be gas or diesel or 2-cycle, it must pass specific minimum tests.
The forensic tests I run can indicate just about every molecule present and how much of an element or compound is present, but it costs upwards of $850.00.
So will you now concede that your method of judging oil quality by adding up ppm numbers is neither scientific nor relevant, and continue your learning process?
Last edited:
honestly T, the API doesn't qualify oils by quality... basically they have classifications.. aka SN or CK4 as well as viscosity. Then there are other certifications from auto makers themselves or other organizations like JASCO or ACEA.. quality is just a word people use that is probably more dependent on the end users opinion than anything you can define by chemical tests...
for a layman like me, I just figure to look at the label, see if it meets the requirements and buy the cheapest that meets the spec.
Arguing about it gets you no where. These guys on this forum will baffle you with BS and will just beat you down anyway, which you are probably beginning to notice.
JHZR2
Staff member
Huh?honestly T, the API doesn't qualify oils by quality... basically they have classifications.. aka SN or CK4 as well as viscosity. Then there are other certifications from auto makers themselves or other organizations like JASCO or ACEA.. quality is just a word people use that is probably more dependent on the end users opinion than anything you can define by chemical tests...
for a layman like me, I just figure to look at the label, see if it meets the requirements and buy the cheapest that meets the spec.
Arguing about it gets you no where. These guys on this forum will baffle you with BS and will just beat you down anyway, which you are probably beginning to notice.
API and vendor certs verify quality. Case in point, look up the Shell ads from a few years back claiming that Delvac 1300 didn’t meet API CK-4. It even included data IIRC related to oxidation and viscosity control. They were essentially saying that the product didn’t meet the spec API licenses. While the claim was likely false, it’s an interesting case in how API testing validates quality by performance test metrics.
Shell vs Delvac
Hi everyone, Just saw this on Rotella's website. Shell is showing testing that Mobil Delvac 1300 doesn't pass the Volvo T-13 testing. I am a little surprised that the Delvac doesn't pass. I use the ESP Delvac 1 5W-40 and the Mobil 1 TDT, am have been happy with their performance. Thoughts...
bobistheoilguy.com
Quality can mean a few things though. The common “knob” to turn is basestock. Often the specs require some level of performance and don’t differentiate if something outperforms. So one oil with some basestock that is say more oxidation resistant, won’t meet a different or “better” spec. That said, it may not deliver more longevity or wear control either!
So there can be differences in performance, there can be differentiators even with consistent specs met. Price deltas aren’t just advertising or jobber profit. But quantifying them statistically is next to impossible outside of large fleets.
But adding additive ppm is not valid.
And discussing the merits and attempting to find what is “best” based upon objective metrics is not BS. If you think it is, I’m not sure why you’re here?
Sam_Julier
$50 Site Donor 2024
Haha I've noticed, been on the sloppy mechanics page for years, this aint that bad. But this topic is over, I'll admit theres more to it than what I thought and move on. Agree to disagree.honestly T, the API doesn't qualify oils by quality... basically they have classifications.. aka SN or CK4 as well as viscosity. Then there are other certifications from auto makers themselves or other organizations like JASCO or ACEA.. quality is just a word people use that is probably more dependent on the end users opinion than anything you can define by chemical tests...
for a layman like me, I just figure to look at the label, see if it meets the requirements and buy the cheapest that meets the spec.
Arguing about it gets you no where. These guys on this forum will baffle you with BS and will just beat you down anyway, which you are probably beginning to notice.
Arguing about it gets you no where. These guys on this forum will baffle you with BS and will just beat you down anyway, which you are probably beginning to notice.
In fairness, there are guys* on this forum, with PhDs in chemistry, who formulate oil for a living. This is their area of expertise.
That’s not “baffling” with anything, except a deep understanding of the subject. If you’re not keeping up, if you’re feeling “beat down” - that doesn’t make them wrong. It just means you’re not keeping up. Relax. Read. Maybe learn a bit from them.
Agree to disagree?
On what?
If you told me something that was scientifically inaccurate, you don’t get to say, “agree to disagree”. There aren’t multiple “truths” on some topics.
So, no, I won’t “agree to disagree” on a basic understanding of how something works. And, neither should those experts in the field, many of whom have posted on the thread, who are explaining how things actually work.
“Agree to disagree” doesn’t apply here. That’s a settlement for an argument in which there are two equally valid points.
But in the area of technical understanding, of science, in this case, there aren’t multiple valid points. There’s only one right answer.
*I am not among them. I fly airplanes for a living. But I do have a bit of background in Astrophysics, so I speak just a bit of science…and I will argue when someone is wrong on a topic with which I am familiar.
Last edited:
Then, on that point, we agree. Thank you for clarifying what you meant.
The horse is pretty well dead. Let’s agree to stop beating it.
Agreed. Theres good news though, I told my supplier I had that I had to switch away from him explaining cost reasons to which he was confused and after some investigating he said it was an honest error in inputing the invoice and that I would be credited back the difference.
MolaKule
Staff member
Money back is always good.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked