This chart from Lubrizol shows how the different oil specs effect different areas of lubrication and wear.
Lubrizol Chart
Lubrizol Chart
Oil Performance Comparison Chart
- Thread starter motorguy222
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: BobFout
"The performance charts are not a literal translation of a performance specification and should not be used as a replacement for evaluating engine oil performance in accordance with the relevant vehicle manufacturer's requirements."
This sounds like Lubrizols legal department keeping themselves out of trouble.
The chart gives a good indication of how the different oil classifications effect different areas of an engine,from wear to sludge control.If the chart didnt mean anything,Lubrizol wouldnt have it.
"The performance charts are not a literal translation of a performance specification and should not be used as a replacement for evaluating engine oil performance in accordance with the relevant vehicle manufacturer's requirements."
This sounds like Lubrizols legal department keeping themselves out of trouble.
The chart gives a good indication of how the different oil classifications effect different areas of an engine,from wear to sludge control.If the chart didnt mean anything,Lubrizol wouldnt have it.
+1 motorguy
Originally Posted By: motorguy222
Originally Posted By: BobFout
"The performance charts are not a literal translation of a performance specification and should not be used as a replacement for evaluating engine oil performance in accordance with the relevant vehicle manufacturer's requirements."
This sounds like Lubrizols legal department keeping themselves out of trouble.
Why can't CYA statements also be true?
Originally Posted By: motorguy222
The chart gives a good indication of how the different oil classifications effect different areas of an engine,from wear to sludge control.
No, it gives a neat visual representation (not a "good indication") of how much emphasis different specs put on various aspects of performance (not how those specs affect an engine).
Originally Posted By: motorguy222
If the chart didnt mean anything,Lubrizol wouldnt have it.
No one's saying it doesn't mean anything. They're saying it doesn't mean what you think it means.
Originally Posted By: BobFout
"The performance charts are not a literal translation of a performance specification and should not be used as a replacement for evaluating engine oil performance in accordance with the relevant vehicle manufacturer's requirements."
This sounds like Lubrizols legal department keeping themselves out of trouble.
Why can't CYA statements also be true?
Originally Posted By: motorguy222
The chart gives a good indication of how the different oil classifications effect different areas of an engine,from wear to sludge control.
No, it gives a neat visual representation (not a "good indication") of how much emphasis different specs put on various aspects of performance (not how those specs affect an engine).
Originally Posted By: motorguy222
If the chart didnt mean anything,Lubrizol wouldnt have it.
No one's saying it doesn't mean anything. They're saying it doesn't mean what you think it means.
Dood speaks true.
Besides, that sucker has been pasted here more than a few times.
It's kinda neat. Just don't over analyze or read too much into it.
Besides, that sucker has been pasted here more than a few times.
It's kinda neat. Just don't over analyze or read too much into it.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Besides, that sucker has been pasted here more than a few times.
Heh.. yeah, that whole Lubrizol tool is almost as old as BITOG itself. I'm surprised motorguy222 hasn't seen it posted here before as we literally must have hundreds of threads talking about it or referring to it.
It's kinda neat, I agree.
Besides, that sucker has been pasted here more than a few times.
Heh.. yeah, that whole Lubrizol tool is almost as old as BITOG itself. I'm surprised motorguy222 hasn't seen it posted here before as we literally must have hundreds of threads talking about it or referring to it.
It's kinda neat, I agree.
going by the chart, the most rounded oil spec is ford 934B?
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: motorguy222
Originally Posted By: BobFout
"The performance charts are not a literal translation of a performance specification and should not be used as a replacement for evaluating engine oil performance in accordance with the relevant vehicle manufacturer's requirements."
This sounds like Lubrizols legal department keeping themselves out of trouble.
Why can't CYA statements also be true?
Originally Posted By: motorguy222
The chart gives a good indication of how the different oil classifications effect different areas of an engine,from wear to sludge control.
No, it gives a neat visual representation (not a "good indication") of how much emphasis different specs put on various aspects of performance (not how those specs affect an engine).
Originally Posted By: motorguy222
If the chart didnt mean anything,Lubrizol wouldnt have it.
No one's saying it doesn't mean anything. They're saying it doesn't mean what you think it means.
If this chart had been from SOPUS,many here would be talking about how it was a good indicator of how well oils keep engines in good condition and how that SOPUS products exceed every standard out their.
It also seems ironic,especially from a group of people that at times,fight about oil,will then dismiss something that actually shows how different specs apply to different aspects of an engine.
If a person looks at the different specs,they can see that some oils dont put much if any emphasis on certain areas of an engine.
Originally Posted By: motorguy222
Originally Posted By: BobFout
"The performance charts are not a literal translation of a performance specification and should not be used as a replacement for evaluating engine oil performance in accordance with the relevant vehicle manufacturer's requirements."
This sounds like Lubrizols legal department keeping themselves out of trouble.
Why can't CYA statements also be true?
Originally Posted By: motorguy222
The chart gives a good indication of how the different oil classifications effect different areas of an engine,from wear to sludge control.
No, it gives a neat visual representation (not a "good indication") of how much emphasis different specs put on various aspects of performance (not how those specs affect an engine).
Originally Posted By: motorguy222
If the chart didnt mean anything,Lubrizol wouldnt have it.
No one's saying it doesn't mean anything. They're saying it doesn't mean what you think it means.
If this chart had been from SOPUS,many here would be talking about how it was a good indicator of how well oils keep engines in good condition and how that SOPUS products exceed every standard out their.
It also seems ironic,especially from a group of people that at times,fight about oil,will then dismiss something that actually shows how different specs apply to different aspects of an engine.
If a person looks at the different specs,they can see that some oils dont put much if any emphasis on certain areas of an engine.
Originally Posted By: motorguy222
If this chart had been from SOPUS,many here would be talking about how it was a good indicator of how well oils keep engines in good condition and how that SOPUS products exceed every standard out their.
I sincerely doubt that. I also have no idea why that would matter. A fallacy is a fallacy no matter how many people believe otherwise.
Originally Posted By: motorguy222
It also seems ironic,especially from a group of people that at times,fight about oil,will then dismiss something that actually shows how different specs apply to different aspects of an engine.
Nothing's being dismissed here. All we're saying is that the chart doesn't mean what you think it means.
Originally Posted By: motorguy222
If a person looks at the different specs,they can see that some oils dont put much if any emphasis on certain areas of an engine.
Some specs (not oils) don't emphasize certain types of performance (not areas of an engine).
If this chart had been from SOPUS,many here would be talking about how it was a good indicator of how well oils keep engines in good condition and how that SOPUS products exceed every standard out their.
I sincerely doubt that. I also have no idea why that would matter. A fallacy is a fallacy no matter how many people believe otherwise.
Originally Posted By: motorguy222
It also seems ironic,especially from a group of people that at times,fight about oil,will then dismiss something that actually shows how different specs apply to different aspects of an engine.
Nothing's being dismissed here. All we're saying is that the chart doesn't mean what you think it means.
Originally Posted By: motorguy222
If a person looks at the different specs,they can see that some oils dont put much if any emphasis on certain areas of an engine.
Some specs (not oils) don't emphasize certain types of performance (not areas of an engine).
^If oils are formulated to spec, then I don't understand why the need to mince words about that? The point is still the same.
If an oil is formulated with fundamentals in mind, there is obviously psychoanalyzed the gains/losses from one approach or formulation to a spec compared to another. Thus the need for revisions/reformulations over time, in part anyway. Because even the formulators aren't even completely sure, we'll have another reformulation eventually, right?
A type of performance emphasis will indeed leave other areas of an engine with 'less' attention to detail or slight negligence. It's a fundamental issue as to why there are different formulations, because different engines/apps call for different spec's to be met/thus different oils. Yet in still we know these see differing usage.
Now, to put a context on 'how much' that means, or even to assume that is implying a 'negative' connotation isn't what I'm saying. Just to be clear, but there are differences we know.
...and btw, people are people and marketing is marketing...most people have a brain worn(at least the average joe) from Pennzoil 'fears' of sludge to Pennzoil 'praise' for engine cleanliness...so I get some of the point motorguy is trying to say.
In the end, reading into it too much is a mistake of course. Now, on the other hand, if you remove such a chart and had it presented in an outlined argument, it could still be as convincing, the chart is an attempt at convincing/presenting ____(X) is better than ____ (Y) to buy believers into the new formulation.
If an oil is formulated with fundamentals in mind, there is obviously psychoanalyzed the gains/losses from one approach or formulation to a spec compared to another. Thus the need for revisions/reformulations over time, in part anyway. Because even the formulators aren't even completely sure, we'll have another reformulation eventually, right?
A type of performance emphasis will indeed leave other areas of an engine with 'less' attention to detail or slight negligence. It's a fundamental issue as to why there are different formulations, because different engines/apps call for different spec's to be met/thus different oils. Yet in still we know these see differing usage.
Now, to put a context on 'how much' that means, or even to assume that is implying a 'negative' connotation isn't what I'm saying. Just to be clear, but there are differences we know.
...and btw, people are people and marketing is marketing...most people have a brain worn(at least the average joe) from Pennzoil 'fears' of sludge to Pennzoil 'praise' for engine cleanliness...so I get some of the point motorguy is trying to say.
In the end, reading into it too much is a mistake of course. Now, on the other hand, if you remove such a chart and had it presented in an outlined argument, it could still be as convincing, the chart is an attempt at convincing/presenting ____(X) is better than ____ (Y) to buy believers into the new formulation.
Last edited:
There is a great SN G5 oil chart just like this. This modern oil should be integrated/compared to the old chart.
I am not saying that there are no 'good' oils.I am also not saying that the chart is 100% accurate.I am saying that it can and does give some insight as to how each oil spec emphasizes a certain part of an engine.
Since some specs,ACEA for example,puts more emphasis on engine wear and other areas than API does,that may be something that a person needs to consider when they choose an oil.
Since ACEA does put more of an emphasis on wear than it does on mpg,does that make it better at controlling wear? It could and this is an area that many consider when they decide which oil to use.
If a new chart shows that SN/G5 to be comparable to ACEA and others,that is good.
We can learn something from the chart and that is this.Some of the oils that are thought to be so much better than others may not be that good and some that are considered weak and lesser may be much better than some want to admit.
Since some specs,ACEA for example,puts more emphasis on engine wear and other areas than API does,that may be something that a person needs to consider when they choose an oil.
Since ACEA does put more of an emphasis on wear than it does on mpg,does that make it better at controlling wear? It could and this is an area that many consider when they decide which oil to use.
If a new chart shows that SN/G5 to be comparable to ACEA and others,that is good.
We can learn something from the chart and that is this.Some of the oils that are thought to be so much better than others may not be that good and some that are considered weak and lesser may be much better than some want to admit.
hmm very interested on seeing how API SM - SN would appear on the chart.
Originally Posted By: david_ES2
hmm very interested on seeing how API SM - SN would appear on the chart.
Not sure if this helps you, but check out there chart at http://www.gf-5.com/the_story/performance/ it uses a similar graphic to show GF4 -> GF5.
hmm very interested on seeing how API SM - SN would appear on the chart.
Not sure if this helps you, but check out there chart at http://www.gf-5.com/the_story/performance/ it uses a similar graphic to show GF4 -> GF5.
thank you sicko, good read!
...makes me wonder if my friend with his Nissan Titan that uses E-85 often may have elevated wear because of consistent uses of E-85?
Originally Posted By: BobFout
An oil would NEVER exceed the parameters for the specs it meets... (sarcasm). I think that's the point some are trying to make.
I dont know if that is what some may think but considering that it costs money to even meet the standards,how many go above and beyond the standards needed?
We know that European auto makers have many times required 10W-40 oils for their vehicles,BMW has done this.We also know that if you do a search for a motor oil on a website that you have a good possibility of getting one choice if you live in the US and something else if you live in Europe and it is for the same car.
The chart gives people an idea of what the standards are and what those standards emphasize.
An oil would NEVER exceed the parameters for the specs it meets... (sarcasm). I think that's the point some are trying to make.
I dont know if that is what some may think but considering that it costs money to even meet the standards,how many go above and beyond the standards needed?
We know that European auto makers have many times required 10W-40 oils for their vehicles,BMW has done this.We also know that if you do a search for a motor oil on a website that you have a good possibility of getting one choice if you live in the US and something else if you live in Europe and it is for the same car.
The chart gives people an idea of what the standards are and what those standards emphasize.
sicko -
Yes, That's the link!
Yes, That's the link!
- Status
Similar threads
