Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: volk06
Originally Posted By: 147_Grain
Additive package isn't as strong as lower grades in PU because the average 0W-40 consumer will be changing their oil more frequently.
How do you know that? That's pure speculation on the formulation and besides boron, this PU has a stronger additive package. More CA and moly, sorry but youre wrong and just talking without looking at the data.
147_Grain: the SRT service schedule calls for 6K OCIs... hardly "more frequently" than the average consumer.
Volk06: "Stronger" additive package? With the Zn and P nearly halved compared to M1? I'll grant you that ZDDP isn't the be-all end-all of anti-wear out there, but of the elements listed in this VOA I find it hard to conclude that PU has a stronger additive package. More Calcium- M1 0w40 has more than PU 0w40. Moly? PU has more, but moly is a friction modifier for efficiency more than anti-wear. To me its 6 of one, half a dozen of the other. Nothing clearly stands out to make this PU sample better in any way than the M1, and frankly the reduced ZDDP is disappointing when significantly more would be allowed in this grade and it could still get the SN rating. The low starting viscosity is also an eyebrow-raiser, and one hopes that the GTL base oil holds viscosity so well that this doesn't matter.
And I'll caveat all this by repeating: I know VOAs are largely for academic interest more than real-world performance. But I was still hoping for something distinctive to jump out, and it just doesn't.
If you read the quotes, I was comparing the supposed lower grades of PU. There was NO mention of M1 0w40.
Originally Posted By: volk06
Originally Posted By: 147_Grain
Additive package isn't as strong as lower grades in PU because the average 0W-40 consumer will be changing their oil more frequently.
How do you know that? That's pure speculation on the formulation and besides boron, this PU has a stronger additive package. More CA and moly, sorry but youre wrong and just talking without looking at the data.
147_Grain: the SRT service schedule calls for 6K OCIs... hardly "more frequently" than the average consumer.
Volk06: "Stronger" additive package? With the Zn and P nearly halved compared to M1? I'll grant you that ZDDP isn't the be-all end-all of anti-wear out there, but of the elements listed in this VOA I find it hard to conclude that PU has a stronger additive package. More Calcium- M1 0w40 has more than PU 0w40. Moly? PU has more, but moly is a friction modifier for efficiency more than anti-wear. To me its 6 of one, half a dozen of the other. Nothing clearly stands out to make this PU sample better in any way than the M1, and frankly the reduced ZDDP is disappointing when significantly more would be allowed in this grade and it could still get the SN rating. The low starting viscosity is also an eyebrow-raiser, and one hopes that the GTL base oil holds viscosity so well that this doesn't matter.
And I'll caveat all this by repeating: I know VOAs are largely for academic interest more than real-world performance. But I was still hoping for something distinctive to jump out, and it just doesn't.
If you read the quotes, I was comparing the supposed lower grades of PU. There was NO mention of M1 0w40.