Chevron Delo XLE 15W-40 CK4 (semi synthetic)

Messages
5,988
Location
Houston, Texas
That's one weak additive package. The magnesium makes up for the lake of calcium, and the moly and the boron are anti wear additives which make up a little bit for the lack of zinc and phosphorus, but I still think it's weak.
 
MOM, remember that Chevron XLE is using ashless detergents, which will not show up on a $38 UOA. It's been discussed quite extensively on the board, and Chevron even put out a whitepaper regarding ashless detergents and TBN; one cannot equate this UOA with older formulations because of this. Perfect example is member dustyroads ran the 10W30 XLE in his semi for 55K miles and the oil held up just fine, pulling an average of 78K pounds according to his notes. I would call this oil anything but weak... Dustyroads 55k UOA Delo XLE 10W30
 
Messages
837
Location
AR
^Yes - I don't think the effectiveness of the more modern add-packs can be discerned from these Blackstone UOA's,
 
Messages
15,003
Location
Upper Midwest
Originally Posted by tundraotto
^Yes - I don't think the effectiveness of the more modern add-packs can be discerned from these Blackstone UOA's,
Actually the truth is that no one could ever determine the effectiveness of any fully formulated motor oil from a Blackstone UOA. Comments such as "weak sauce" or "look at that slug of moly" don't give any evidence whether it meets or exceeds the requirements of CK-4 or any other license.
 
Messages
98
Location
MD
Thread starter
Which/whose lab test will show the effectiveness of a modern add-pack? Looking at the UOA of Dustyroads, seems to test the same parameters as Blackstone. I've got no dog in the fight, just trying to share a little data with the world.
 
Messages
15,003
Location
Upper Midwest
Originally Posted by HDoilDude
Which/whose lab test will show the effectiveness of a modern add-pack? Looking at the UOA of Dustyroads, seems to test the same parameters as Blackstone. I've got no dog in the fight, just trying to share a little data with the world.
The licenses, certifications and approvals the oil carries are what show the effectiveness of a modern add-pack, and you don't even have to pay extra to find that out. They are printed on every container. A UOA can be useful for other things such as coolant, fuel or silicon contamination, or to show the remaining TBN if you wish to perform extended drains. But it does not show the effectiveness of the additive pack. Blackstone themselves indicate that between appropriately rated oils there is no statistically significant difference in "performance". For the most part the differences you see in a UOA are due to the operating conditions or the specific engine under consideration, not the oil. Without additional sample processing such as an acid digestion it's not even a good tool for predicting impending equipment failure.
 
Messages
4,112
Location
WA
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
+1 kschachn, it's always nice to see helpful info.
Agreed..+2
Originally Posted by kschachn
The licenses, certifications and approvals the oil carries are what show the effectiveness of a modern add-pack, and you don't even have to pay extra to find that out. They are printed on every container.
...
 
Last edited:
Messages
98
Location
MD
Thread starter
Originally Posted by kschachn
Originally Posted by HDoilDude
Which/whose lab test will show the effectiveness of a modern add-pack? Looking at the UOA of Dustyroads, seems to test the same parameters as Blackstone. I've got no dog in the fight, just trying to share a little data with the world.
The licenses, certifications and approvals the oil carries are what show the effectiveness of a modern add-pack, and you don't even have to pay extra to find that out. They are printed on every container. A UOA can be useful for other things such as coolant, fuel or silicon contamination, or to show the remaining TBN if you wish to perform extended drains. But it does not show the effectiveness of the additive pack. Blackstone themselves indicate that between appropriately rated oils there is no statistically significant difference in "performance". For the most part the differences you see in a UOA are due to the operating conditions or the specific engine under consideration, not the oil. Without additional sample processing such as an acid digestion it's not even a good tool for predicting impending equipment failure.
Thanks for that explanation. Gotta trust that the lobbying trade association (API) is looking out for my engine's best interest and not just appeasing stricter emission laws, after my money, etc. I guess!
 
Last edited:
Messages
4,112
Location
WA
Originally Posted by HDoilDude
Thanks for that explanation. Gotta trust that the lobbying trade association (API) is looking out for my engine's best interest and not just appeasing stricter emission laws, after my money, etc. I guess!
Though I'm not sure what you mean by "after my money" the API has a vested interest in ensuring oil meets the spec's of today's engine builders. They are both a trade assoc that lobby's and a standards setting org with licensing authority, working hand in hand with the appropriate govt agencies to ensure oil not only meets federal regs for emissions but also doesn't grenade your engine. That little donut looking thing on the back of the oil bottle actually means a lot.
 
Last edited:
Messages
98
Location
MD
Thread starter
Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter
Originally Posted by HDoilDude
Thanks for that explanation. Gotta trust that the lobbying trade association (API) is looking out for my engine's best interest and not just appeasing stricter emission laws, after my money, etc. I guess!
Though I'm not sure what you mean by "after my money" the API has a vested interest in ensuring oil meets the spec's of today's engine builders. They are both a trade assoc that lobby's and a standards setting org with licensing authority, working hand in hand with the appropriate govt agencies to ensure oil not only meets federal regs for emissions but also doesn't grenade your engine. That little donut looking thing on the back of the oil bottle actually means a lot.
Just a little tongue in cheek, quick crack at a lobbyists in general. No offense meant.
 
Messages
4,112
Location
WA
Originally Posted by HDoilDude
Just a little tongue in cheek, quick crack at a lobbyists in general. No offense meant.
No, problem..i wasn't offended, I just didn't know if you were being serious or tongue in cheek. I guess in some sense you're right, that the API does "make" money off the licensing but I guess that's a necessary evil so to speak? Without those approvals how would we really know if the oil meets the engine builders specs?? I know I personally would never use a lube that didn't carry the requisite API/ILSAC approvals. Are there lubes that exceed the requirements of API/ILSAC, sure I guess..but you know at least if it meets API/ILSAC requirement it's not gonna grenade your engine.
 
Messages
98
Location
MD
Thread starter
Haven't seen much titanium in the CK4 VOAs on here and the PQIA site. Interesting that there's a dash of it in this Delo semi-synth.
 
Last edited:
Top