I'll post tonight.
Ravenol DXG 5W30 D1G2 VOA
- Thread starter SubieRubyRoo
- Start date
- Status
The new formulation of Dexos1 Gen2 is introduced with the batch of 17301588 and 17101600. Orders for the product according to the new recipe are accepted and shipped from October 01, 2017.
proof https://www.ravenol.su/blog-novost-statyia/novaya-retseptura-ravenol-dxg-sae-5w-30/newproduct/616
proof https://www.ravenol.su/blog-novost-statyia/novaya-retseptura-ravenol-dxg-sae-5w-30/newproduct/616
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
I threw together a quick comparison table... there ARE minor differences, but nothing as shocking as the other oil manufacturers have done:
My guess is all of those numbers represent normal variation of one batch to the next and even so are well within the standard deviation for any lab measurement - in other words not statistically significant differences.
I threw together a quick comparison table... there ARE minor differences, but nothing as shocking as the other oil manufacturers have done:
My guess is all of those numbers represent normal variation of one batch to the next and even so are well within the standard deviation for any lab measurement - in other words not statistically significant differences.
PWM, that was my point- with just one sample each, and other than magnesium all of the changes are essentially single digits, you're likely looking at the variability of the batch or the equipment. Neither one makes any difference as far as this sample was concerned. I'll post lot number tonight, but i ordered this oil in November 2018 so I don't understand why some think even though the bottle shows D1G2 that they don't believe it.
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
I don't understand why some think even though the bottle shows D1G2 that they don't believe it.
Because I saw Ravenol DXG 5W30 D1G2 http://www.oilchoice.ru/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=5587
Ca decrease from 2000 to 1271
+ Mo
- Na
I don't understand why some think even though the bottle shows D1G2 that they don't believe it.
Because I saw Ravenol DXG 5W30 D1G2 http://www.oilchoice.ru/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=5587
Ca decrease from 2000 to 1271
+ Mo
- Na
Do you think Ravenol would risk problems to put a product in a jug that said it was certified D1G2 if it was really D1G1? I'm not a lawyer but I could see this causing big issues if they got caught?
Originally Posted by Gubkin
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
I don't understand why some think even though the bottle shows D1G2 that they don't believe it.
Because I saw Ravenol DXG 5W30 D1G2 http://www.oilchoice.ru/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=5587
Ca decrease from 2000 to 1271
+ Mo
- Na
I'm not a conspiracy theory kind of guy but there's a few things not adding up here. The link above clearly shows no Na and reduced Ca which is consistent with D1G2 and this sample not only doesn't differ from the published D1G1 formulation but the Ca and Na levels are inconsistent with every other D1G2 formulation known. Everything points to this being the D1G1 formulation.
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
I don't understand why some think even though the bottle shows D1G2 that they don't believe it.
Because I saw Ravenol DXG 5W30 D1G2 http://www.oilchoice.ru/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=5587
Ca decrease from 2000 to 1271
+ Mo
- Na
I'm not a conspiracy theory kind of guy but there's a few things not adding up here. The link above clearly shows no Na and reduced Ca which is consistent with D1G2 and this sample not only doesn't differ from the published D1G1 formulation but the Ca and Na levels are inconsistent with every other D1G2 formulation known. Everything points to this being the D1G1 formulation.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
Do you think Ravenol would risk problems to put a product in a jug that said it was certified D1G2 if it was really D1G1? I'm not a lawyer but I could see this causing big issues if they got caught?
Maybe it's a legit mixup. Maybe there was just too much D1G1 left over to justify wasting it and they took a risk with a small batch of D1G1 in D1G2 bottles....who knows....but the data presented are what they are....
Do you think Ravenol would risk problems to put a product in a jug that said it was certified D1G2 if it was really D1G1? I'm not a lawyer but I could see this causing big issues if they got caught?
Maybe it's a legit mixup. Maybe there was just too much D1G1 left over to justify wasting it and they took a risk with a small batch of D1G1 in D1G2 bottles....who knows....but the data presented are what they are....
Originally Posted by PimTac
What we really need are the parameters that are required for d1G2. Without those we are just guessing here.
I have heard that German label laws are very specific and very strict. I would doubt that Ravenol would try to circumvent those.
The question right now for me is why does the D1G2 DXG presented by the OP here appear to be exactly the same as the former D1G1 formulation AND why is this VOA entirely consistent with D1G1 AND why does this differ from the Russian link that also claims to be D1G2 yet it has a VOA that is entirely consistent with every other D1G2 oil?
What we really need are the parameters that are required for d1G2. Without those we are just guessing here.
I have heard that German label laws are very specific and very strict. I would doubt that Ravenol would try to circumvent those.
The question right now for me is why does the D1G2 DXG presented by the OP here appear to be exactly the same as the former D1G1 formulation AND why is this VOA entirely consistent with D1G1 AND why does this differ from the Russian link that also claims to be D1G2 yet it has a VOA that is entirely consistent with every other D1G2 oil?
Last edited:
Considering Dexos is a proprietary specification and GM controls the requirements, I don't know if there are additive limits... but I did read all of the additional tests required to certify for D1G2 and it's quite extensive. I don't remember what website I was reading about it on, but it said that the Dexos1 Gen2 spec was much harder to meet and should result in a "superior" (their words) oil.
I wonder if it's possible this shows a difference in how Ravenol is approaching Gen2 vs. how the Big Four are approaching it- maybe Ravenol is maxing out all of the antiwear additives and detergents because they are pursuing a much different price bracket, while the Big Four are pursuing the minimums required to meet the spec? I agree, it seems silly for Ravenol to chance getting "caught" cheating specs at the same time they are spending millions of dollars in advertising and R&D to become the official oil several racing series.
Ravenol DXG announcement
I wonder if it's possible this shows a difference in how Ravenol is approaching Gen2 vs. how the Big Four are approaching it- maybe Ravenol is maxing out all of the antiwear additives and detergents because they are pursuing a much different price bracket, while the Big Four are pursuing the minimums required to meet the spec? I agree, it seems silly for Ravenol to chance getting "caught" cheating specs at the same time they are spending millions of dollars in advertising and R&D to become the official oil several racing series.
Ravenol DXG announcement
Another thing which is also possible, and more likely since several other manufacturers have admitted to, is that the PQIA sample is really D1G2 oil with a D1G1 label. I believe both Valvoline and Pennzoil made announcements that for a short while as they used up the pre-printed stickers, the oil would actually be D1G2 with D1G1 labels, because D1G2 covers all D1G1 specs.
You know what? I just remembered when I opened my first jug of D1G2 DXG- I was curious as to what the scratch-off label on the back panel is. It says "myravenol.com" or something similar. So I went to that site and punched in my code. It is a validator which checks the info and the site verified the number for my jug was authentic DXG D1G2. So that means the front and back labels are correct, and match what the site says should be D1G2. I'll do the same tonight with my 2nd jug and share the info.
Originally Posted by PWMDMD
Originally Posted by PimTac
What we really need are the parameters that are required for d1G2. Without those we are just guessing here.
I have heard that German label laws are very specific and very strict. I would doubt that Ravenol would try to circumvent those.
The question right now for me is why does the D1G2 DXG presented by the OP here appear to be exactly the same as the former D1G1 formulation AND why is this VOA entirely consistent with D1G1 AND why does this differ from the Russian link that also claims to be D1G2 yet it has a VOA that is entirely consistent with every other D1G2 oil?
It not exactly the same. The calcium was reduced ever so slightly and the sodium was decreased. We have known that both of these components are triggers for LSPI but at what levels?
My guess, and that's all it is, is that Ravenol lowered these levels to meet the certifications so as to keep the oil formulation as close as possible to the former.
Originally Posted by PimTac
What we really need are the parameters that are required for d1G2. Without those we are just guessing here.
I have heard that German label laws are very specific and very strict. I would doubt that Ravenol would try to circumvent those.
The question right now for me is why does the D1G2 DXG presented by the OP here appear to be exactly the same as the former D1G1 formulation AND why is this VOA entirely consistent with D1G1 AND why does this differ from the Russian link that also claims to be D1G2 yet it has a VOA that is entirely consistent with every other D1G2 oil?
It not exactly the same. The calcium was reduced ever so slightly and the sodium was decreased. We have known that both of these components are triggers for LSPI but at what levels?
My guess, and that's all it is, is that Ravenol lowered these levels to meet the certifications so as to keep the oil formulation as close as possible to the former.
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
I wonder if it's possible this shows a difference in how Ravenol is approaching Gen2 vs. how the Big Four are approaching it-
Ravenol DXG announcement
The problem with this argument is the Russian site. That VOA shows a D1G2 DXG Ravenol that is exactly the same as the big four.
I wonder if it's possible this shows a difference in how Ravenol is approaching Gen2 vs. how the Big Four are approaching it-
Ravenol DXG announcement
The problem with this argument is the Russian site. That VOA shows a D1G2 DXG Ravenol that is exactly the same as the big four.
Originally Posted by PimTac
Originally Posted by PWMDMD
Originally Posted by PimTac
What we really need are the parameters that are required for d1G2. Without those we are just guessing here.
I have heard that German label laws are very specific and very strict. I would doubt that Ravenol would try to circumvent those.
The question right now for me is why does the D1G2 DXG presented by the OP here appear to be exactly the same as the former D1G1 formulation AND why is this VOA entirely consistent with D1G1 AND why does this differ from the Russian link that also claims to be D1G2 yet it has a VOA that is entirely consistent with every other D1G2 oil?
It not exactly the same. The calcium was reduced ever so slightly and the sodium was decreased. We have known that both of these components are triggers for LSPI but at what levels?
My guess, and that's all it is, is that Ravenol lowered these levels to meet the certifications so as to keep the oil formulation as close as possible to the former.
But how do we factor in the Russian site VOA? Ravenol now has a Russia-only D1G2 DXG that IS consistent with every other D1G2 oil (No Na, low Ca) and a second DXG formulation for the rest of the world that looks just like the D1G1 (Na + high Ca) but tweaked those just right to make it D1G2 compliant? I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here but come on guys....if it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck.
Originally Posted by PWMDMD
Originally Posted by PimTac
What we really need are the parameters that are required for d1G2. Without those we are just guessing here.
I have heard that German label laws are very specific and very strict. I would doubt that Ravenol would try to circumvent those.
The question right now for me is why does the D1G2 DXG presented by the OP here appear to be exactly the same as the former D1G1 formulation AND why is this VOA entirely consistent with D1G1 AND why does this differ from the Russian link that also claims to be D1G2 yet it has a VOA that is entirely consistent with every other D1G2 oil?
It not exactly the same. The calcium was reduced ever so slightly and the sodium was decreased. We have known that both of these components are triggers for LSPI but at what levels?
My guess, and that's all it is, is that Ravenol lowered these levels to meet the certifications so as to keep the oil formulation as close as possible to the former.
But how do we factor in the Russian site VOA? Ravenol now has a Russia-only D1G2 DXG that IS consistent with every other D1G2 oil (No Na, low Ca) and a second DXG formulation for the rest of the world that looks just like the D1G1 (Na + high Ca) but tweaked those just right to make it D1G2 compliant? I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here but come on guys....if it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck.
Last edited:
Here's some more food for thought: in the part of their advertisement below, Ravenol says "with IMMEDIATE effect" they offer 2 products that meet API SN+ on the day it goes into effect (May 1st, 2018) which, if this was Mobil oil, everyone would take that the same way as they did when Mobil said they met API SN+ before it was even ever conceived:
The oil already in the marketplace on 5/1/2018 already met the specifications for API SN+ but couldn't be labeled as such until it went into effect. By 5/1/18, D1G2 was already on shelves, so it seems to me perfectly plausible that both the sample that PQIA got and my sample are indeed D1G2.
The oil already in the marketplace on 5/1/2018 already met the specifications for API SN+ but couldn't be labeled as such until it went into effect. By 5/1/18, D1G2 was already on shelves, so it seems to me perfectly plausible that both the sample that PQIA got and my sample are indeed D1G2.
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
Another thing which is also possible, and more likely since several other manufacturers have admitted to, is that the PQIA sample is really D1G2 oil with a D1G1 label. I believe both Valvoline and Pennzoil made announcements that for a short while as they used up the pre-printed stickers, the oil would actually be D1G2 with D1G1 labels, because D1G2 covers all D1G1 specs.
Still doesn't account for the Russian D1G2 VOA.
Another thing which is also possible, and more likely since several other manufacturers have admitted to, is that the PQIA sample is really D1G2 oil with a D1G1 label. I believe both Valvoline and Pennzoil made announcements that for a short while as they used up the pre-printed stickers, the oil would actually be D1G2 with D1G1 labels, because D1G2 covers all D1G1 specs.
Still doesn't account for the Russian D1G2 VOA.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
Here's some more food for thought: in the part of their advertisement below, Ravenol says "with IMMEDIATE effect" they offer 2 products that meet API SN+ on the day it goes into effect (May 1st, 2018) which, if this was Mobil oil, everyone would take that the same way as they did when Mobil said they met API SN+ before it was even ever conceived:
The oil already in the marketplace on 5/1/2018 already met the specifications for API SN+ but couldn't be labeled as such until it went into effect. By 5/1/18, D1G2 was already on shelves, so it seems to me perfectly plausible that both the sample that PQIA got and my sample are indeed D1G2.
Plausible! Still leaves me disappointed - I wanted to see the new formulation - but if the Russian site is accurate still suggest there is a new and old formulation out there.
Here's some more food for thought: in the part of their advertisement below, Ravenol says "with IMMEDIATE effect" they offer 2 products that meet API SN+ on the day it goes into effect (May 1st, 2018) which, if this was Mobil oil, everyone would take that the same way as they did when Mobil said they met API SN+ before it was even ever conceived:
The oil already in the marketplace on 5/1/2018 already met the specifications for API SN+ but couldn't be labeled as such until it went into effect. By 5/1/18, D1G2 was already on shelves, so it seems to me perfectly plausible that both the sample that PQIA got and my sample are indeed D1G2.
Plausible! Still leaves me disappointed - I wanted to see the new formulation - but if the Russian site is accurate still suggest there is a new and old formulation out there.
Last edited:
- Status