Originally Posted By: Topo
KCJeep said:
PQIA's Synthetics - Part Three
- Thread starter martinq
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: buster
Here is Amsoil:
http://www.pqiamerica.com/2012 April results/Amsoil.htm
No comments?? Looks like Amsoil is out of control
Yup, good VI and good NOACK
My guess is that 153ppm of moly is Infineum trimer type. Anyone have any more info on this?
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: buster
Here is Amsoil:
http://www.pqiamerica.com/2012 April results/Amsoil.htm
No comments?? Looks like Amsoil is out of control
Yup, good VI and good NOACK
My guess is that 153ppm of moly is Infineum trimer type. Anyone have any more info on this?
Just changed my oil yesterday with NAPA Synthetic 5w20, and a Pureone filter. Now I feel especially great about it! Wonder what kind of dreams I'll have tonight.....
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Where are you guys getting Formula Shell, especially at $3.50/qt?
B J's wholesale. It was $19 for a case of 6 two months ago.
Where are you guys getting Formula Shell, especially at $3.50/qt?
B J's wholesale. It was $19 for a case of 6 two months ago.
dnewton3
Staff member
I'll say this (and I suspect it will suprise no one ....)
Most of you waste too much time "bench racing" with VOAs and not nearly enough time really running longer OCIs to validate your theories.
Outputs (UOAs) are much more telling than inputs (VOAs). Results are what matters.
I would wholly agree that we can predict certain possibilities from VOAs. It is certainly reasonable to look at something such as the PU Noack value and presume it would not evaporate off as much as some of the others with higher values; that much is reasonable. And, a higher TBN might also predict a longer OCI possibility.
However, unless one ever runs those lubes in a situation where the least performing alternative would actualy be usurped by a stronger competitor, then the topics are moot. No one product would be eclipsed if you never put any of them in a position where the lower performances would be surmounted by others.
And since many, many BITOGers run their synthetics only for 5-8k miles (a few of them might "brave it" to 10k), it's all just silly banter. Lowly dino fluids can go further than most BITOGers would ever push them (at least in a healthy engine).
I like the PQIA site; good information for starting points. But it's not a reason to circle around the totem pole in a victory dance. It's just inputs, folks.
Allow me to drag out one of my older analogies ...
Let's presume you knew of several good basket-ball teams, say in the upcoming sweet-sixteen. You can bet all you want on the starting rosters; you can argue and debate the merits of each player (each input metal) and each coach (each TBN) and each home town venue (each Noack). But I'll wait to determine a winner until the games are actually played. I want to judge on results, not inputs.
Comparing/contrasting VOAs only hints at what is possible. Running UOAs for long distances proves it. So why you all sit around and hash out the minutia of which synthetic lube is "best", I'll be blowing your OCI doors off with my ST and Rural King dino sauce, finding out where the TRUE limits of lubes are ...
It's not that I don't think synthetics are worthy of consideration. I actually use a few different syn's in some of my applications.
What I believe is that most of you would rather "bench race" the lubes, than actually run the risk of testing them, and possibly being wrong. There is plausible deniability in guessing; there is no such thing in results. And that's fine if it makes you happy. But the "truth" does not lay in a guess; it lingers beneath the details of actual performance. As my dad once told me, "put up or shut up".
You cannot ever really "know" for sure which is "best" until you run any lube in a specific application, and then look it over with statistical analysis.
Most of you waste too much time "bench racing" with VOAs and not nearly enough time really running longer OCIs to validate your theories.
Outputs (UOAs) are much more telling than inputs (VOAs). Results are what matters.
I would wholly agree that we can predict certain possibilities from VOAs. It is certainly reasonable to look at something such as the PU Noack value and presume it would not evaporate off as much as some of the others with higher values; that much is reasonable. And, a higher TBN might also predict a longer OCI possibility.
However, unless one ever runs those lubes in a situation where the least performing alternative would actualy be usurped by a stronger competitor, then the topics are moot. No one product would be eclipsed if you never put any of them in a position where the lower performances would be surmounted by others.
And since many, many BITOGers run their synthetics only for 5-8k miles (a few of them might "brave it" to 10k), it's all just silly banter. Lowly dino fluids can go further than most BITOGers would ever push them (at least in a healthy engine).
I like the PQIA site; good information for starting points. But it's not a reason to circle around the totem pole in a victory dance. It's just inputs, folks.
Allow me to drag out one of my older analogies ...
Let's presume you knew of several good basket-ball teams, say in the upcoming sweet-sixteen. You can bet all you want on the starting rosters; you can argue and debate the merits of each player (each input metal) and each coach (each TBN) and each home town venue (each Noack). But I'll wait to determine a winner until the games are actually played. I want to judge on results, not inputs.
Comparing/contrasting VOAs only hints at what is possible. Running UOAs for long distances proves it. So why you all sit around and hash out the minutia of which synthetic lube is "best", I'll be blowing your OCI doors off with my ST and Rural King dino sauce, finding out where the TRUE limits of lubes are ...
It's not that I don't think synthetics are worthy of consideration. I actually use a few different syn's in some of my applications.
What I believe is that most of you would rather "bench race" the lubes, than actually run the risk of testing them, and possibly being wrong. There is plausible deniability in guessing; there is no such thing in results. And that's fine if it makes you happy. But the "truth" does not lay in a guess; it lingers beneath the details of actual performance. As my dad once told me, "put up or shut up".
You cannot ever really "know" for sure which is "best" until you run any lube in a specific application, and then look it over with statistical analysis.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: sjstangman
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Where are you guys getting Formula Shell, especially at $3.50/qt?
B J's wholesale. It was $19 for a case of 6 two months ago.
Thanks. A new BJ's is getting ready to open up in town (our first warehouse club besides Sam's Club). Looking forward to shopping the auto section.
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Where are you guys getting Formula Shell, especially at $3.50/qt?
B J's wholesale. It was $19 for a case of 6 two months ago.
Thanks. A new BJ's is getting ready to open up in town (our first warehouse club besides Sam's Club). Looking forward to shopping the auto section.
Originally Posted By: tig1
My test of the oil I use is how does my engine perform after 300K(miles) with 10K OCIs.
The only test that really matters!
Keep in mind folks the PQIA is a "consumer watchdog". It's out to find substandard products that don't meet marketed specs or standards (and boy, have they exposed some!). It's not so we can bench race a bunch of oils and trash the ones with higher or lower numbers in certain areas. I sound like a broken record but there are things that don't show up in a spectro.
My test of the oil I use is how does my engine perform after 300K(miles) with 10K OCIs.
The only test that really matters!
Keep in mind folks the PQIA is a "consumer watchdog". It's out to find substandard products that don't meet marketed specs or standards (and boy, have they exposed some!). It's not so we can bench race a bunch of oils and trash the ones with higher or lower numbers in certain areas. I sound like a broken record but there are things that don't show up in a spectro.
Sorry, dnewton, I didn't see your post until I posted, but I guess we were thinking along the same lines.
Originally Posted By: buster
VOA and UOA #'s give you some information, but not all. Only engine testing and certifications/specifications really matter.
?
Actually only real life matters.
All I really see in these single sample tests is a verification of published specifications. You can begin to see maybe some oils are what the companies actually publish, not just "made up specs" as some people have claimed over the years.
VOA and UOA #'s give you some information, but not all. Only engine testing and certifications/specifications really matter.
?
Actually only real life matters.
All I really see in these single sample tests is a verification of published specifications. You can begin to see maybe some oils are what the companies actually publish, not just "made up specs" as some people have claimed over the years.
Agree.
I've seen oils that look great on paper, loaded with xyz additives only to show average results. I've seen oils that look anemic, but are anything but and meet the most demanding specifications.
An example:
Honda's Industry Turbo spec. On paper, Mobil Super looks just as good as Mobil 1. Look at how their Mobil Super (assuming that's the competitive oil tested) fairs against Mobil 1.
http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Synthetics/Mobil_1_Heat_Protection.aspx
Quote:
In fact, Mobil 1 synthetic oil provides superior performance versus our other full synthetic and conventional oils when tested for high-temperature deposit formation, as seen below.
I've seen oils that look great on paper, loaded with xyz additives only to show average results. I've seen oils that look anemic, but are anything but and meet the most demanding specifications.
An example:
Honda's Industry Turbo spec. On paper, Mobil Super looks just as good as Mobil 1. Look at how their Mobil Super (assuming that's the competitive oil tested) fairs against Mobil 1.
http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Synthetics/Mobil_1_Heat_Protection.aspx
Quote:
In fact, Mobil 1 synthetic oil provides superior performance versus our other full synthetic and conventional oils when tested for high-temperature deposit formation, as seen below.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: buster
VOA and UOA #'s give you some information, but not all. Only engine testing and certifications/specifications really matter.
?
Actually only real life matters.
All I really see in these single sample tests is a verification of published specifications. You can begin to see maybe some oils are what the companies actually publish, not just "made up specs" as some people have claimed over the years.
That is the point of PQIA though isn't it?
Originally Posted By: buster
VOA and UOA #'s give you some information, but not all. Only engine testing and certifications/specifications really matter.
?
Actually only real life matters.
All I really see in these single sample tests is a verification of published specifications. You can begin to see maybe some oils are what the companies actually publish, not just "made up specs" as some people have claimed over the years.
That is the point of PQIA though isn't it?
Originally Posted By: cp3
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: buster
VOA and UOA #'s give you some information, but not all. Only engine testing and certifications/specifications really matter.
?
Actually only real life matters.
All I really see in these single sample tests is a verification of published specifications. You can begin to see maybe some oils are what the companies actually publish, not just "made up specs" as some people have claimed over the years.
That is the point of PQIA though isn't it?
Exactly.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: buster
VOA and UOA #'s give you some information, but not all. Only engine testing and certifications/specifications really matter.
?
Actually only real life matters.
All I really see in these single sample tests is a verification of published specifications. You can begin to see maybe some oils are what the companies actually publish, not just "made up specs" as some people have claimed over the years.
That is the point of PQIA though isn't it?
Exactly.
Originally Posted By: Topo
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: Topo
I'm talking about there SL Rated Version with Synerlec, prior to coming out with a SN version. Not their racing oils.
http://www.pqiamerica.com/November 2011 samples/RoyalPurple.htm
Thanks, decent Noak. Great TBN..Never understood what's up with all the sulfur though.
EP additive. Explains the results they get from the spinning wheel test. I really don't want that much sulfur in my engine.
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: Topo
I'm talking about there SL Rated Version with Synerlec, prior to coming out with a SN version. Not their racing oils.
http://www.pqiamerica.com/November 2011 samples/RoyalPurple.htm
Thanks, decent Noak. Great TBN..Never understood what's up with all the sulfur though.
EP additive. Explains the results they get from the spinning wheel test. I really don't want that much sulfur in my engine.
I got 2 cases of the Napa Syn for 3.50/qt last summer. I figured for the price, it couldn't hurt. It was API approved, so it couldn't be that bad.
I have been running it this winter, and its treated me well. I certainly haven't noticed any problems with it, and I think the KIA likes the 0w-20. UOA coming soon.
When its on sale, its almost half the price of PU at Walmart, and its even cheaper than some conventional oil, too. I will be picking some more up, if it goes on sale again. Until them I have some QSUD (I got my rebate back within a month) and some PP, and the remaining case of Napa Syn to go through.
I would also consider the Auto Extra, if I ever found some on a good sale. It appears to be the same oil, essentially.
I have been running it this winter, and its treated me well. I certainly haven't noticed any problems with it, and I think the KIA likes the 0w-20. UOA coming soon.
When its on sale, its almost half the price of PU at Walmart, and its even cheaper than some conventional oil, too. I will be picking some more up, if it goes on sale again. Until them I have some QSUD (I got my rebate back within a month) and some PP, and the remaining case of Napa Syn to go through.
I would also consider the Auto Extra, if I ever found some on a good sale. It appears to be the same oil, essentially.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Given that it was a 10w-30, the NOACK isn't that decent really. M1 0w-40, which has a massive visc spread in comparison and a MUCH higher VI, has a NOACK of 8.8%.
Do we know how PU 0w40 stacks up against M1 0w40? I haven't found a good side-by-side comparison (but my search-fu on this board is very weak...) Being a new SRT owner, I'm particularly interested. PU is now the factory fill for SRT engines (and Pennz writes great ad copy about it being "co-engineered" with Chrysler). But how much of all this is because of the broader Chrysler/SOPUS alliance, or just ad copy?
Given that it was a 10w-30, the NOACK isn't that decent really. M1 0w-40, which has a massive visc spread in comparison and a MUCH higher VI, has a NOACK of 8.8%.
Do we know how PU 0w40 stacks up against M1 0w40? I haven't found a good side-by-side comparison (but my search-fu on this board is very weak...) Being a new SRT owner, I'm particularly interested. PU is now the factory fill for SRT engines (and Pennz writes great ad copy about it being "co-engineered" with Chrysler). But how much of all this is because of the broader Chrysler/SOPUS alliance, or just ad copy?
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Given that it was a 10w-30, the NOACK isn't that decent really. M1 0w-40, which has a massive visc spread in comparison and a MUCH higher VI, has a NOACK of 8.8%.
Do we know how PU 0w40 stacks up against M1 0w40? I haven't found a good side-by-side comparison (but my search-fu on this board is very weak...) Being a new SRT owner, I'm particularly interested. PU is now the factory fill for SRT engines (and Pennz writes great ad copy about it being "co-engineered" with Chrysler). But how much of all this is because of the broader Chrysler/SOPUS alliance, or just ad copy?
Just the hideously vague PDS:
http://www.epc.shell.com/Docs/GPCDOC_X_cbe_24855_key_140007304050_201207271338.pdf
API: SN
100C: 13.7
40C: N/A
VI: N/A
PP: -45C
MRV @ -40C: 22,500
CCS @ -35C: 5,700
HTHS: N/A
Flash: N/A
M1 0w-40 (SN US version)
API: SN
100C: 13.5
40C: 75
VI: 185
MRV @ -40C: 31,000
CCS @ -35C: N/A
HTHS: 3.8cP
Flash: 230C
M1 0w-40 (SM Canadian version)
API: SM
100C: 14.3
40C: 80
VI: 187
PP: -54C
MRV @ -40C: N/A
CCS @ -35C: N/A
HTHS: 3.6cP
Flash: 236C
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Given that it was a 10w-30, the NOACK isn't that decent really. M1 0w-40, which has a massive visc spread in comparison and a MUCH higher VI, has a NOACK of 8.8%.
Do we know how PU 0w40 stacks up against M1 0w40? I haven't found a good side-by-side comparison (but my search-fu on this board is very weak...) Being a new SRT owner, I'm particularly interested. PU is now the factory fill for SRT engines (and Pennz writes great ad copy about it being "co-engineered" with Chrysler). But how much of all this is because of the broader Chrysler/SOPUS alliance, or just ad copy?
Just the hideously vague PDS:
http://www.epc.shell.com/Docs/GPCDOC_X_cbe_24855_key_140007304050_201207271338.pdf
API: SN
100C: 13.7
40C: N/A
VI: N/A
PP: -45C
MRV @ -40C: 22,500
CCS @ -35C: 5,700
HTHS: N/A
Flash: N/A
M1 0w-40 (SN US version)
API: SN
100C: 13.5
40C: 75
VI: 185
MRV @ -40C: 31,000
CCS @ -35C: N/A
HTHS: 3.8cP
Flash: 230C
M1 0w-40 (SM Canadian version)
API: SM
100C: 14.3
40C: 80
VI: 187
PP: -54C
MRV @ -40C: N/A
CCS @ -35C: N/A
HTHS: 3.6cP
Flash: 236C
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Given that it was a 10w-30, the NOACK isn't that decent really. M1 0w-40, which has a massive visc spread in comparison and a MUCH higher VI, has a NOACK of 8.8%.
Do we know how PU 0w40 stacks up against M1 0w40? I haven't found a good side-by-side comparison (but my search-fu on this board is very weak...) Being a new SRT owner, I'm particularly interested. PU is now the factory fill for SRT engines (and Pennz writes great ad copy about it being "co-engineered" with Chrysler). But how much of all this is because of the broader Chrysler/SOPUS alliance, or just ad copy?
Just the hideously vague PDS:
http://www.epc.shell.com/Docs/GPCDOC_X_cbe_24855_key_140007304050_201207271338.pdf
API: SN
100C: 13.7
40C: N/A
VI: N/A
PP: -45C
MRV @ -40C: 22,500
CCS @ -35C: 5,700
HTHS: N/A
Flash: N/A
M1 0w-40 (SN US version)
API: SN
100C: 13.5
40C: 75
VI: 185
MRV @ -40C: 31,000
CCS @ -35C: N/A
HTHS: 3.8cP
Flash: 230C
M1 0w-40 (SM Canadian version)
API: SM
100C: 14.3
40C: 80
VI: 187
PP: -54C
MRV @ -40C: N/A
CCS @ -35C: N/A
HTHS: 3.6cP
Flash: 236C
Enough "N/A" in there to make all the lawyers in a medium sized county happy ;-p
I'm sure they're both among the best oils you can get from the majors, and by the way I agree with the folks who have pointed out that the "outputs" are what matter most. But I kinda like to pick among the few best "inputs" before the "output" is a lot of wear metals or a lot of varnish, or PCV contamination, or.... whatever.
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Given that it was a 10w-30, the NOACK isn't that decent really. M1 0w-40, which has a massive visc spread in comparison and a MUCH higher VI, has a NOACK of 8.8%.
Do we know how PU 0w40 stacks up against M1 0w40? I haven't found a good side-by-side comparison (but my search-fu on this board is very weak...) Being a new SRT owner, I'm particularly interested. PU is now the factory fill for SRT engines (and Pennz writes great ad copy about it being "co-engineered" with Chrysler). But how much of all this is because of the broader Chrysler/SOPUS alliance, or just ad copy?
Just the hideously vague PDS:
http://www.epc.shell.com/Docs/GPCDOC_X_cbe_24855_key_140007304050_201207271338.pdf
API: SN
100C: 13.7
40C: N/A
VI: N/A
PP: -45C
MRV @ -40C: 22,500
CCS @ -35C: 5,700
HTHS: N/A
Flash: N/A
M1 0w-40 (SN US version)
API: SN
100C: 13.5
40C: 75
VI: 185
MRV @ -40C: 31,000
CCS @ -35C: N/A
HTHS: 3.8cP
Flash: 230C
M1 0w-40 (SM Canadian version)
API: SM
100C: 14.3
40C: 80
VI: 187
PP: -54C
MRV @ -40C: N/A
CCS @ -35C: N/A
HTHS: 3.6cP
Flash: 236C
Enough "N/A" in there to make all the lawyers in a medium sized county happy ;-p
I'm sure they're both among the best oils you can get from the majors, and by the way I agree with the folks who have pointed out that the "outputs" are what matter most. But I kinda like to pick among the few best "inputs" before the "output" is a lot of wear metals or a lot of varnish, or PCV contamination, or.... whatever.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Sticky
- Locked
