Fascinating study on Ravenol 0w16 vs 5w30 in fleet of similar autos

[emod]

Originally Posted by Bjornviken
Originally Posted by emod


... the discussion of the Ravenol's oils in this forum was forbidden - a conflict between the oil-club.ru and the company Ravenol.


Why was it a conflict?


This is a sensitive topic. I do not want to comment on it. All I can say is that there was a discrepancy between data from VOA of some oils and the official data declared by the Ravenol about these oils.

 

[buster]

https://noln.net/2017/06/30/skinny-ow-16-oil/

18 years worth of data on these oils in Japan.

I'd love to see the actual data though, especially on more demanding tests from the IVA/IIIG, GM turbo/HTO-06 among others. What happens when a good dose of fuel gets into the oil? They are certainly reading the maxim lower visocisty limit. Seems like there is little room for error.

Takahashi: We are one of the only suppliers at this point that have 0W-8 oil, but we aren't stopping there. Be looking for even lower viscosities to come.

 

[Bjornviken]

Originally Posted by emod

Originally Posted by Bjornviken
Originally Posted by emod


... the discussion of the Ravenol's oils in this forum was forbidden - a conflict between the oil-club.ru and the company Ravenol.


Why was it a conflict?


This is a sensitive topic. I do not want to comment on it. All I can say is that there was a discrepancy between data from VOA of some oils and the official data declared by the Ravenol about these oils.


I have heard similar about Ravenol, someting about big quality difference. Funny is that Finland have alot off weird oil brands but havent seen any Ravenol at store.

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by OilUzer
Originally Posted by StevieC
... Paging all the "Thicker is better" folks. ...

thicker folks are so shocked with x16 they don't know what to say!
also we thought we had assimilated almost all u guys!

kind of disapointed, we need to work harder!

These graphs are all supposedly marketing and should be taken with a grain of salt, unless it's a 30wt or 40wt from XOM/SOPUS then the marketing is to be trusted blindly.

 

[dblshock]

of course these tests are done by Ravenoil to promo their new intro 0W16. put that [censored] in a bigger car and beat on it for 8k then take a look.

 

[ChemLabNL]

"They are certainly reading the maxim lower visocisty limit. Seems like there is little room for error"

This is even more true for the modern high thermal efficient engines operating in short-trip winter conditions that promotes fuel dilution. In the winter you will need to use a 0w40 and change over to 0w16 in the summer... Does that seem counter intuitive?

 

[buster]

Originally Posted by ChemLabNL
"They are certainly reading the maxim lower visocisty limit. Seems like there is little room for error"

This is even more true for the modern high thermal efficient engines operating in short-trip winter conditions that promotes fuel dilution. In the winter you will need to use a 0w40 and change over to 0w16 in the summer... Does that seem counter intuitive?

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by StevieC
These graphs are all supposedly marketing and should be taken with a grain of salt, unless it's a 30wt or 40wt from XOM/SOPUS then the marketing is to be trusted blindly.

Ahhh...more drivel trying to paint a label on those who disagree with your conformational bias. Per the discussion that you wanted to have then pouted and walked away from in the Amsoil thread...Same issues with the adverts.

Advertising is advertising it's not science, anymore than a tide advertisement is a documentary.

The charts with numbers are simply stating their performance against industry standards...the standards that all certiciated oils MUST beat...yes, they did alright, but so do all of them...comparable to Amsoil, Comparable to Valvoline. Comparable to Castrol (who won't release an oil that doesn't beat Sequence IVA by at least 60%)

The comparative charts against the "no name" C3 (not their OWN C3) have no scaling, and no indication as to how they were measured (especially the "wear" chart.

So you are saying that you'll blindly trust a chart with no numbers, no scaling, no zero point, because a company says "trust us", and it fits in with what you want to believe.

See...advertising works.

 

[StevieC]

There is a heavy bias here toward SOPUS and XOM depending on whatever group folks find themselves in. It's known. Same as there is a biased toward "thicker is better" despite there being lots of real world proof this isn't a concern.

My post in this thread had nothing to do with you and I waring back and forth in other threads. You need to stop reading into things too much but since you made a post aimed toward me I will indulge.

With regards to Ravenol versus a C3 rated oil, why does it matter? C3 rating should make all oils perform to at least the minimum level set out by the C3 spec and they are showing that their oil meets and exceeds the performance of the C3 oil they tested it against even though they are using a thinner weight which would also yield a lower HTHS. This lower HTHS rating should according to some yield less protection which can lead to more wear.

If XOM or Sopus had put this out in the same manner folks of each crowd would be all over it, but because it's not a mainstream branded oil with enough supporters here, it is immediately cast aside just like Amsoil, Redline or some other oil that isn't used as frequently.

Even when we were discussing a less mainstream oil like Amsoil and they list their ASTM tests and results that isn't good enough for you so nothing ultimately will be because you think it's biased or made up or whatever the excuse of the day is. Yet these companies, Redline, Amsoil, Ravenol are all still in business with increasing sales and no reported lawsuits. Amazing how that works if these companies were pulling fast ones or making up results and didn't live up to their claims.

And news-flash. The ordinary wrench head, enthusiasts and joe public who aren't members here (and that is a lot of folks) don't have the slightest clue what the ASTM testing methods or specifications mean, heck they don't even know who the API is. They buy based on marketing materials so why would a company waste money on providing everything we "would like to see" over and above what the API requires, when that doesn't sell oil at the end of the day? All they need to do is make sure their oil lives up to the marketing claims to ensure they don't get sued so they can remain in business.

I think that you have a hard time admitting that there might be someone out there with a better product than mainstream oils that are built to a cost point and not built solely on performance regardless of cost so you immediately dismiss the possibility because it's not mainstream or might not carry API licensing and doesn't fit with your idea of what is possible and what it should cost.

But whatever... It's not worth arguing with you over because it will just end up in circles like every other thread. Live in your narrow minded "there can't possibly be better out there" world.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by StevieC
With regards to Ravenol versus a C3 rated oil, why does it matter? C3 rating should make all oils perform to at least the minimum level set out by the C3 spec and they are showing that their oil meets and exceeds the performance of the C3 oil they tested it against even though they are using a thinner weight which would also yield a lower HTHS. This lower HTHS rating should according to some yield less protection which can lead to more wear.


It matters because a C3 oil is designed for applications that require an HTHS of >=3.5cP, which this application doesn't.

C3 is a low SAPS spec, and, like with the API, denotes a minimum level of performance. One of those parameters is a minimum HTHS, which obviously the 0w-16 doesn't meet.

But, getting past that:

They tested a 0w-16 and a 5w-30 C3 lubricant in an application that calls for 5w-20/0w-20. They tested a 0w-16 that's PAO-based with no VII's (so it won't shear) and then provided some graphs with no scale that showed:
- Some small (going by the dimensionless graphs) wear performance benefit
- Less TBN loss (completely normal when compared to ANY low SAPS oil, so completely meaningless)
- Less viscosity loss, which is again entirely expected, since the oil has no VII's; it's a straight-weight that gets to carry the 0w-xx designation due to its PAO content.

In an application likely developed on a non-PAO 0w-16 (since that's the direction Japan has been going for ages) or even thinner oil, it should be no surprise that a generic C3 low SAPS 5w-30 didn't prove to be a better lubricant than a shear-proof 0w-16 that does not abide by the constraints of the C3 designation for additives. This was a predictable outcome.

Originally Posted by StevieC
If XOM or Sopus had put this out in the same manner folks of each crowd would be all over it, but because it's not a mainstream branded oil with enough supporters here, it is immediately cast aside just like Amsoil, Redline or some other oil that isn't used as frequently.


That's malarky. Sure you'd have some folks cheerleading the claims and you'd have the same group, including myself and Shannow, injecting some much needed reality. These threads all go the same way, it doesn't matter whose name is on the bottle. Some people just seem to get a bit overly sensitive when it is their brand of choice with its feet to the fire. That's not intended to be a dig, it's just par for the course when one's personal preference is the one being criticized.

 

[StevieC]

At the end of the day they can't claim something that isn't true because before long they will be sued into oblivion. Lots of snake oil went that way. Yet Ravenol, Amsoil, Redline and whatever else in the same boat are still here despite folks like Shannow finding whatever doesn't appease them to try and throw dirt in their direction.

In the case of him and I discussing Amsoil in general and 20wt's I even provided the ASTM test methods used, provided my real world example of how well the lubricant performed for me in my Santa Fe and showed a UOA of how the lubricant was performing at a high level at the OEM OCI and that still isn't good enough because he has a biased because they aren't mainstream and as I said above, can't admit that there is possibly something better out there.

40+ years for Amsoil and no lawsuits. But I guess that's just good luck that no one called them on their shady B.S. marketing and non licensed API oils. Man would I like those horseshoes.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by StevieC
At the end of the day they can't claim something that isn't true because before long they will be sued into oblivion. Lots of snake oil went that way. Yet Ravenol, Amsoil, Redline and whatever else in the same boat are still here.


Sure, but you don't manufacture advertising material to paint your product as inferior. These tests are specifically engineered to produce the desired end result. Take this claim from SOPUS years back:

Notice how SOPUS shows ONE piston from each. Then look at all six pistons as Mobil presents them. Not surprisingly, the results are not the same. Cherry pick the worst Mobil piston and the best SOPUS piston and voila! You could do the exact same thing the other way around and it would be equally as valid.

 

[StevieC]

Even showing one piston versus all the pistons, will there be minor differences between cylinders? Sure as is shown in the lower Mobil 1 photo of all the pistons, but are they going to be drastically different between cylinders? (as also shown in the lower Mobil 1 photo) Not unless there is some other factor contributing to it like hot spots or less than optimal burn etc.

This is another example of reading too much into something and assuming it's because they want to cherry pick or hide something. We can't prove this was the case, so we can't assume it was.

Further how do we know these photos weren't doctored in some way either modifying something in the test (like slightly different fuel) that would affect the outcome or in Photoshop with different lighting applied in order to make them appear better? (Playing devils advocate here). We are just supposed to blindly believe them because they are XOM and SOPUS?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by StevieC
Even showing one piston versus all the pistons, will there be minor differences between cylinders? Sure as is shown in the lower Mobil 1 photo of all the pistons, but are they going to be drastically different between cylinders? (as also shown in the lower Mobil 1 photo) Not unless there is some other factor contributing to it like hot spots or less than optimal burn etc.

This is another example of reading too much into something and assuming it's because they want to cherry pick or hide something. We can't prove this was the case, so we can't assume it was.


Take a breath.

Now, look at the comparison pistons. Note the same level of variation.

This is a standardized test. All pistons, from Mobil and from Shell, are from the same engine test. The level of variability you see is expected and normal.

Would you, if you were Shell, choose the top-right piston from the group of Mobil's six or the bottom left?

There's no "reading too much", it's a test that provides you with six samples, if you are putting together an advert you choose the best one from your group and the worst one from the competitors group to get the best contrast. If Shell wasn't cherry picking, they would have shown us all six pistons from both engines. They didn't and it's clear as to why. It's advertising, that's how it works.

 

[StevieC]

Again, we can't assume they cherry picked without proof that they did. Why is this assumption ok when it has no facts to back it up? That's what I'm getting at, maybe they picked the average piston between the dirtiest and the cleanest because they were only showing one. Maybe they all came out looking the same with little variation between them. WE DON'T KNOW FOR SURE.

Further with XOM's deep pockets they would have sued the pants off SOPUS if the claim wasn't true by forcing them to provide proof for all pistons involved in the test to provide proof they cherry picked. Why hasn't that happened?

Shoot they sued Castrol over Group III being marketed as synthetic.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by StevieC

Further how do we know these photos weren't doctored in some way either modifying something in the test (like slightly different fuel) that would affect the outcome or in Photoshop with different lighting applied in order to make them appear better? (Playing devils advocate here). We are just supposed to blindly believe them because they are XOM and SOPUS?


The photos ARE doctored, look at the background colour for the six Mobil pistons and then the six competitor pistons. Notice how much darker it is? Again, MARKETING, even when showing all six pistons, Mobil still made their piston picture brighter to make the difference more pronounced.

This is how the game is played.

So, Mobil gets credit for at least showing all six pistons, but gets a frown for buggering with the contrast. Shell gets a straight frown because they only showed one piston from each engine and I can be 99.9% certain that they chose the best from their own group and the worst from the Mobil group because they would have to be stupid not to. It's all about contrast.

 

[PimTac]

There is way too much assuming going on here.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by StevieC
Again, we can't assume they cherry picked without proof that they did. Why is this assumption ok when it has no facts to back it up? That's what I'm getting at, maybe they picked the average piston between the dirtiest and the cleanest because they were only showing one. Maybe they all came out looking the same with little variation between them. WE DON'T KNOW FOR SURE.

Dude, that's like saying the Easter Bunny is real. Nobody in marketing is going to do that, it would be stupid. You make the best of the data you have, which in this case would be choosing the best from your lot and the worst from theirs, otherwise, they would have shown all six pistons from both engines, we both know why they didn't and claiming it isn't obvious is silly.

 

[StevieC]

Further with XOM's deep pockets they would have sued the pants off SOPUS if the claim wasn't true by forcing them to provide proof for all pistons involved in the test to provide proof they cherry picked. Why hasn't that happened? Especially when SOPUS is saying they "beat" M1.

Shoot they sued Castrol over Group III being marketed as synthetic.

 

[StevieC]

For the record, I was a previous M1 user. I have no issues with XOM or SOPUS, this is just a discussion. Just before anyone thinks I'm biased one way or the other and takes this the wrong way.