This is a good link that shows a great UOA and seems much better that M1
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...rue#Post2700070
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...rue#Post2700070
GOIL - Why isn't it more popular
- Thread starter DanMiller
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: DanMiller
This is a good link that shows a great UOA and seems much better that M1
That depends what you're looking for. If you're looking at "wear metals," you're entering dangerous territory. Incidentally, none of them were anywhere near the usual condemnation levels. I'd look at TBN for starters, but that wasn't always tested. I'd also compare if one variety stayed in grade whereas another didn't over a similar OCI and similar usage. Something in those UOAs (not oil related per se) to look at is the alarmingly high silicon as time passed.
This is a good link that shows a great UOA and seems much better that M1
That depends what you're looking for. If you're looking at "wear metals," you're entering dangerous territory. Incidentally, none of them were anywhere near the usual condemnation levels. I'd look at TBN for starters, but that wasn't always tested. I'd also compare if one variety stayed in grade whereas another didn't over a similar OCI and similar usage. Something in those UOAs (not oil related per se) to look at is the alarmingly high silicon as time passed.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: DanMiller
This is a good link that shows a great UOA and seems much better that M1
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...rue#Post2700070
But look at the levels of calcium. They are literally almost half that of the M1. Calcium is a detergent.
Also look at the levels of Phosphorous and Zinc, these are anti-wear additives.
This is the problem with trying to compare different brands. If oil "A" has detergents out the ying-yang and tends to keep contaminants in suspension, those contaminants, which are in the 1-3 micron range (yes, they go straight through your oil filter) are going to show up on a UOA.
On the other hand if oil B, while still a good oil, isn't quite as good at doing the same thing, those same contaminants may end up settled in a corner somewhere, on the bottom of the pan....etc. Those of course will NOT show up in a UOA.
When you are looking at a difference of 8-10ppm (which is what we see in the linked UOA you are trying to draw a comparison from) you are not seeing enough of a difference to determine anything. From the numbers in that link, the only real conclusion that can be drawn is that the engine is wearing normally on all oils used, and the G-Oil will need to be changed out very soon, as TBN is almost fully depleted by 3,500 miles.
Remember, M1 0w40 is an extended drain oil. It meets basically all of the relevant Euro extended drain standards.
What does that mean? It means that it has to keep contaminants in suspension for Euro-spec OCI's. It has to do this to obtain those certifications. So it is additized out the wazoo in order to keep an engine clean for those intervals, which can be 25,000+ miles
This is not the case for the G-Oil. That doesn't make it a bad oil, so please don't misunderstand what I'm saying. But it doesn't make it as good an oil for the applications that a lubricant like M1 0w40 is required. In fact, it would be completely unacceptable to try to run Euro OCI's with it, as you would likely experience severe deposit, sludge and potentially varnish formation because the additives in the oil would be depleted.
What does all this mean? Well, it means that even though the UOA has slightly higher levels for iron and copper for the M1 0w40, that doesn't mean it wasn't protecting as well. In fact, it likely is protecting better, based on the more robust additive package. What you are seeing is the results of the cleaning nature of that additive package, which is part of what makes that oil what it is.
But the bigger issue here is the danger of conclusions drawn by people about what the numbers mean. In this case, you've drawn the conclusion that M1 0w40 performed "worse" than G-Oil. This is based on 8 and 10 ppm variances in iron and copper between the two oils and a single M1 0w40 reference point. It doesn't factor in that the oils were not run for the same duration. It does not factor in the potential effects of the extended drain oil's additive package on these numbers and contaminant suspension and because we lack a trend for either we are very limited in what, if ANY conclusion we can draw from this aside from the very obvious such as how long it can be safely used at this point. Information we don't even have for the one reference point
I understand the need for the warm and fuzzy "I'm running the best oil because I did a UOA and the numbers were low" feeling. But that is not their purpose. They are not accurate enough to be used in that way for starters. The particle size that they sample is too narrow, the margin for error is too high and to derive even the most basic of conclusions outside of obvious contamination issues, one has to trend them over hundreds of thousands of miles.
I always use this example, and I'm sure many tire of it, but I'll throw it out again for you to chew on.
Doug Hillary ran a fleet of OTR trucks on Mobil Delvac 1. These were 500HP Detroit Diesel powered trucks.
Oil change intervals were ~90,000Km
Condemnation point for iron was ~100ppm
UOA's were performed regularly to track contaminant levels and oil life.
Random tear down tests were performed on the trucks in service to determine wear.
At 1.2 Million Km's, a piston, liner and rod bearing were pulled from one of the engines and measured. Everything spec'd "as new". The cylinder wall still had visible cross hatching on it. The pictures are on this board, as is Doug's description of the tear down.
Using the BITOG UOA Posse's logic here, 100ppm of iron means those engines were coming apart. 100ppm, 100ppm
You guys get freaked out about 10ppm.
So how is it, that using 100ppm as his condemnation point, he was able to tear this engine down at 1.2 million Km's and still have things spec "as new". How is it that there were cylinder walls left here? I mean those are iron and he had 100ppm of iron for his OCI condemnation point, how is this possible???????
Because minute variances in metals between UOA's don't tell you about wear.
I came on this board thinking the same way you do. Wanting to use UOA's in the same way. I discovered I was wrong. My thinking was wrong and subsequently was told what the purpose of the tool really is. I'm trying to teach you that same lesson
This is a good link that shows a great UOA and seems much better that M1
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...rue#Post2700070
But look at the levels of calcium. They are literally almost half that of the M1. Calcium is a detergent.
Also look at the levels of Phosphorous and Zinc, these are anti-wear additives.
This is the problem with trying to compare different brands. If oil "A" has detergents out the ying-yang and tends to keep contaminants in suspension, those contaminants, which are in the 1-3 micron range (yes, they go straight through your oil filter) are going to show up on a UOA.
On the other hand if oil B, while still a good oil, isn't quite as good at doing the same thing, those same contaminants may end up settled in a corner somewhere, on the bottom of the pan....etc. Those of course will NOT show up in a UOA.
When you are looking at a difference of 8-10ppm (which is what we see in the linked UOA you are trying to draw a comparison from) you are not seeing enough of a difference to determine anything. From the numbers in that link, the only real conclusion that can be drawn is that the engine is wearing normally on all oils used, and the G-Oil will need to be changed out very soon, as TBN is almost fully depleted by 3,500 miles.
Remember, M1 0w40 is an extended drain oil. It meets basically all of the relevant Euro extended drain standards.
What does that mean? It means that it has to keep contaminants in suspension for Euro-spec OCI's. It has to do this to obtain those certifications. So it is additized out the wazoo in order to keep an engine clean for those intervals, which can be 25,000+ miles
This is not the case for the G-Oil. That doesn't make it a bad oil, so please don't misunderstand what I'm saying. But it doesn't make it as good an oil for the applications that a lubricant like M1 0w40 is required. In fact, it would be completely unacceptable to try to run Euro OCI's with it, as you would likely experience severe deposit, sludge and potentially varnish formation because the additives in the oil would be depleted.
What does all this mean? Well, it means that even though the UOA has slightly higher levels for iron and copper for the M1 0w40, that doesn't mean it wasn't protecting as well. In fact, it likely is protecting better, based on the more robust additive package. What you are seeing is the results of the cleaning nature of that additive package, which is part of what makes that oil what it is.
But the bigger issue here is the danger of conclusions drawn by people about what the numbers mean. In this case, you've drawn the conclusion that M1 0w40 performed "worse" than G-Oil. This is based on 8 and 10 ppm variances in iron and copper between the two oils and a single M1 0w40 reference point. It doesn't factor in that the oils were not run for the same duration. It does not factor in the potential effects of the extended drain oil's additive package on these numbers and contaminant suspension and because we lack a trend for either we are very limited in what, if ANY conclusion we can draw from this aside from the very obvious such as how long it can be safely used at this point. Information we don't even have for the one reference point
I understand the need for the warm and fuzzy "I'm running the best oil because I did a UOA and the numbers were low" feeling. But that is not their purpose. They are not accurate enough to be used in that way for starters. The particle size that they sample is too narrow, the margin for error is too high and to derive even the most basic of conclusions outside of obvious contamination issues, one has to trend them over hundreds of thousands of miles.
I always use this example, and I'm sure many tire of it, but I'll throw it out again for you to chew on.
Doug Hillary ran a fleet of OTR trucks on Mobil Delvac 1. These were 500HP Detroit Diesel powered trucks.
Oil change intervals were ~90,000Km
Condemnation point for iron was ~100ppm
UOA's were performed regularly to track contaminant levels and oil life.
Random tear down tests were performed on the trucks in service to determine wear.
At 1.2 Million Km's, a piston, liner and rod bearing were pulled from one of the engines and measured. Everything spec'd "as new". The cylinder wall still had visible cross hatching on it. The pictures are on this board, as is Doug's description of the tear down.
Using the BITOG UOA Posse's logic here, 100ppm of iron means those engines were coming apart. 100ppm, 100ppm
So how is it, that using 100ppm as his condemnation point, he was able to tear this engine down at 1.2 million Km's and still have things spec "as new". How is it that there were cylinder walls left here? I mean those are iron and he had 100ppm of iron for his OCI condemnation point, how is this possible???????
Because minute variances in metals between UOA's don't tell you about wear.
I came on this board thinking the same way you do. Wanting to use UOA's in the same way. I discovered I was wrong. My thinking was wrong and subsequently was told what the purpose of the tool really is. I'm trying to teach you that same lesson
Regarding the Calcium levels keep in mind the new formulation has tons of Calcium
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: DanMiller
Regarding the Calcium levels keep in mind the new formulation has tons of Calcium
Excellent
I think it is a good oil and I like their approach.
I don't use it because:
A) It isn't available up here, as you know
B) It wouldn't work in my situation given the poor TBN retention. I typically run OCI's of a minimum of 7,000 miles. For that reason I've traditionally used Mobil 1, which handles those intervals with ease, and more recently AMSOIL.
Regarding the Calcium levels keep in mind the new formulation has tons of Calcium
Excellent
I don't use it because:
A) It isn't available up here, as you know
B) It wouldn't work in my situation given the poor TBN retention. I typically run OCI's of a minimum of 7,000 miles. For that reason I've traditionally used Mobil 1, which handles those intervals with ease, and more recently AMSOIL.
Yes I understand why you don't use it no oil is suitable for everyone I just hope that G-OIL sticks around ( I have heard they had been in financial trouble ).
Thanks
Thanks
Overk1ll,
Thanks for the excellant explaination of the purpose of UOAs. I often get hammered for my stand on UOAs for my engines, and my need not to do them. It's been my very long experience with 10K OCIs that UOAs are not needed in my case except for possible contamination like coolant, fuel, dirt, etc. As I have resently said "I may do a UOA aroung 120-130K to see how the lifetime air filter is doing in the Focus.
Thanks for the excellant explaination of the purpose of UOAs. I often get hammered for my stand on UOAs for my engines, and my need not to do them. It's been my very long experience with 10K OCIs that UOAs are not needed in my case except for possible contamination like coolant, fuel, dirt, etc. As I have resently said "I may do a UOA aroung 120-130K to see how the lifetime air filter is doing in the Focus.
Yes I am concluding M1 isn't as good a GOIL not just because of the UOA I listed but because of all of the UOAs I have seen for M1 over the years, IMO Mobil has cut corners ( on at least some of their oils ) using cheaper Type III base stocks and cheaper additives. I also believe that GOIL is trying harder to make a reputation and Mobil is living off of their past one. I have also heard that Mobil is smartening up and starting to do a better job with these days. I personally have avoided M1 for a while now as one of the largers PAO producers in the world they have no excuse for making an inferrior oil.
Last edited:
Great post overkill. Well thought out and written.
Dan. I agree with your stand as far as mobil which is why when I spend money on oil I buy something else,as there are lots of choices to be had.
And overkill's explanation was fantastic. Every engine wears different,even if they are identical engines,built right after one another,so comparing a uoa from one engine to another just doesn't tell the story. Each particular engine needs to establish trends,then use that info to make determinations and choices.
Dnewton explains it best when he states that a person needs like 30 uoa to make an accurate assessment of a engines needs,and by then most of the car will have rotted off.
A few ppm is just noise really,since each engine sheds wear metals differently. A large spike will indicate an issue,copper for example could mean a bearing has had it or something like that.
I'm content with this hobby being a great way to expand my thought process and learn from guys I would never have the opportunity in my life to actually meet and talk to.
I like g-oil. I like the concept however they aren't easily accessible here,so liqui-moly or pennzoil or Quaker state or rotella it is for me.
Dan. I agree with your stand as far as mobil which is why when I spend money on oil I buy something else,as there are lots of choices to be had.
And overkill's explanation was fantastic. Every engine wears different,even if they are identical engines,built right after one another,so comparing a uoa from one engine to another just doesn't tell the story. Each particular engine needs to establish trends,then use that info to make determinations and choices.
Dnewton explains it best when he states that a person needs like 30 uoa to make an accurate assessment of a engines needs,and by then most of the car will have rotted off.
A few ppm is just noise really,since each engine sheds wear metals differently. A large spike will indicate an issue,copper for example could mean a bearing has had it or something like that.
I'm content with this hobby being a great way to expand my thought process and learn from guys I would never have the opportunity in my life to actually meet and talk to.
I like g-oil. I like the concept however they aren't easily accessible here,so liqui-moly or pennzoil or Quaker state or rotella it is for me.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: DanMiller
Yes I am concluding M1 isn't as good a GOIL not just because of the UOA I listed but because of all of the UOAs I have seen for M1 over the years, IMO Mobil has cut corners ( on at least some of their oils ) using cheaper Type III base stocks and cheaper additives. I also believe that GOIL is trying harder to make a reputation and Mobil is living off of their past one. I have also heard that Mobil is smartening up and starting to do a better job with these days. I personally have avoided M1 for a while now as one of the largers PAO producers in the world they have no excuse for making an inferrior oil.
One of the largest? They are THE largest. They are also the largest producer of AN's and other Group V basestocks. They have no excuse to use GIII other than cost. As far as I know, they don't even MAKE Group III, meaning they have to buy it
Though I think that has changed with VISOM. Regardless, I was just as bummed out as you are when they quietly followed Castrol's lead after having their complaint dismissed.
That being said, they do have many grades of oil that have a lot of the "old" style to them, meaning they have plenty of PAO in them. Those would be the 0w20, 0w30, 0w40 and 15w50 grades.
Yes I am concluding M1 isn't as good a GOIL not just because of the UOA I listed but because of all of the UOAs I have seen for M1 over the years, IMO Mobil has cut corners ( on at least some of their oils ) using cheaper Type III base stocks and cheaper additives. I also believe that GOIL is trying harder to make a reputation and Mobil is living off of their past one. I have also heard that Mobil is smartening up and starting to do a better job with these days. I personally have avoided M1 for a while now as one of the largers PAO producers in the world they have no excuse for making an inferrior oil.
One of the largest? They are THE largest. They are also the largest producer of AN's and other Group V basestocks. They have no excuse to use GIII other than cost. As far as I know, they don't even MAKE Group III, meaning they have to buy it
That being said, they do have many grades of oil that have a lot of the "old" style to them, meaning they have plenty of PAO in them. Those would be the 0w20, 0w30, 0w40 and 15w50 grades.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: DanMiller
This is a good link that shows a great UOA and seems much better that M1
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...rue#Post2700070
But look at the levels of calcium. They are literally almost half that of the M1. Calcium is a detergent.
Also look at the levels of Phosphorous and Zinc, these are anti-wear additives.
But don't forget about the properties of the base-stock. G-Oil is quite different from many other oils in that it has a high ester content and therefore naturally high polarity rendering the detergents, etc, much less necessary.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
From the numbers in that link, the only real conclusion that can be drawn is that the engine is wearing normally on all oils used, and the G-Oil will need to be changed out very soon, as TBN is almost fully depleted by 3,500 miles.
Again, even with TBN I think the condemnation of G-Oil as a short OCI oil is way overblown. I ran this fill to 6500 and it was more than fine.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Remember, M1 0w40 is an extended drain oil. It meets basically all of the relevant Euro extended drain standards.
What does that mean? It means that it has to keep contaminants in suspension for Euro-spec OCI's. It has to do this to obtain those certifications. So it is additized out the wazoo in order to keep an engine clean for those intervals, which can be 25,000+ miles
There is no way you are running any oil in a 1.8T to 25,000 miles. Even with bypass filtration you'd end up with a sludge bucket. I would be comfortable with 10k on M1 in light duty use on a 1.8T, and agree with you probably only 5k on G-Oil.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
This is not the case for the G-Oil. That doesn't make it a bad oil, so please don't misunderstand what I'm saying. But it doesn't make it as good an oil for the applications that a lubricant like M1 0w40 is required. In fact, it would be completely unacceptable to try to run Euro OCI's with it, as you would likely experience severe deposit, sludge and potentially varnish formation because the additives in the oil would be depleted.
What does all this mean? Well, it means that even though the UOA has slightly higher levels for iron and copper for the M1 0w40, that doesn't mean it wasn't protecting as well. In fact, it likely is protecting better, based on the more robust additive package. What you are seeing is the results of the cleaning nature of that additive package, which is part of what makes that oil what it is.
Color me skeptical on this one.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
But the bigger issue here is the danger of conclusions drawn by people about what the numbers mean. In this case, you've drawn the conclusion that M1 0w40 performed "worse" than G-Oil. This is based on 8 and 10 ppm variances in iron and copper between the two oils and a single M1 0w40 reference point. It doesn't factor in that the oils were not run for the same duration. It does not factor in the potential effects of the extended drain oil's additive package on these numbers and contaminant suspension and because we lack a trend for either we are very limited in what, if ANY conclusion we can draw from this aside from the very obvious such as how long it can be safely used at this point. Information we don't even have for the one reference point
I understand the need for the warm and fuzzy "I'm running the best oil because I did a UOA and the numbers were low" feeling. But that is not their purpose. They are not accurate enough to be used in that way for starters. The particle size that they sample is too narrow, the margin for error is too high and to derive even the most basic of conclusions outside of obvious contamination issues, one has to trend them over hundreds of thousands of miles.
Agreed. My conclusion from this report is that G-Oil does AS WELL AS M1 in this application over a standard 5k OCI - so I'm going to keep using it! Plus the slightly better fuel mileage is nice.
Originally Posted By: DanMiller
This is a good link that shows a great UOA and seems much better that M1
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...rue#Post2700070
But look at the levels of calcium. They are literally almost half that of the M1. Calcium is a detergent.
Also look at the levels of Phosphorous and Zinc, these are anti-wear additives.
But don't forget about the properties of the base-stock. G-Oil is quite different from many other oils in that it has a high ester content and therefore naturally high polarity rendering the detergents, etc, much less necessary.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
From the numbers in that link, the only real conclusion that can be drawn is that the engine is wearing normally on all oils used, and the G-Oil will need to be changed out very soon, as TBN is almost fully depleted by 3,500 miles.
Again, even with TBN I think the condemnation of G-Oil as a short OCI oil is way overblown. I ran this fill to 6500 and it was more than fine.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Remember, M1 0w40 is an extended drain oil. It meets basically all of the relevant Euro extended drain standards.
What does that mean? It means that it has to keep contaminants in suspension for Euro-spec OCI's. It has to do this to obtain those certifications. So it is additized out the wazoo in order to keep an engine clean for those intervals, which can be 25,000+ miles
There is no way you are running any oil in a 1.8T to 25,000 miles. Even with bypass filtration you'd end up with a sludge bucket. I would be comfortable with 10k on M1 in light duty use on a 1.8T, and agree with you probably only 5k on G-Oil.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
This is not the case for the G-Oil. That doesn't make it a bad oil, so please don't misunderstand what I'm saying. But it doesn't make it as good an oil for the applications that a lubricant like M1 0w40 is required. In fact, it would be completely unacceptable to try to run Euro OCI's with it, as you would likely experience severe deposit, sludge and potentially varnish formation because the additives in the oil would be depleted.
What does all this mean? Well, it means that even though the UOA has slightly higher levels for iron and copper for the M1 0w40, that doesn't mean it wasn't protecting as well. In fact, it likely is protecting better, based on the more robust additive package. What you are seeing is the results of the cleaning nature of that additive package, which is part of what makes that oil what it is.
Color me skeptical on this one.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
But the bigger issue here is the danger of conclusions drawn by people about what the numbers mean. In this case, you've drawn the conclusion that M1 0w40 performed "worse" than G-Oil. This is based on 8 and 10 ppm variances in iron and copper between the two oils and a single M1 0w40 reference point. It doesn't factor in that the oils were not run for the same duration. It does not factor in the potential effects of the extended drain oil's additive package on these numbers and contaminant suspension and because we lack a trend for either we are very limited in what, if ANY conclusion we can draw from this aside from the very obvious such as how long it can be safely used at this point. Information we don't even have for the one reference point
I understand the need for the warm and fuzzy "I'm running the best oil because I did a UOA and the numbers were low" feeling. But that is not their purpose. They are not accurate enough to be used in that way for starters. The particle size that they sample is too narrow, the margin for error is too high and to derive even the most basic of conclusions outside of obvious contamination issues, one has to trend them over hundreds of thousands of miles.
Agreed. My conclusion from this report is that G-Oil does AS WELL AS M1 in this application over a standard 5k OCI - so I'm going to keep using it! Plus the slightly better fuel mileage is nice.
Hi thanks for the updates, I sent an email to GETG about why they don't have a 0W Oil in their BIO Based Synthetic Oils and they said they are working on it but that its challenging to produce a 0W Oil with the BIO Base Oil they are using.
- Status
Similar threads
