VOA Castrol Edge 5W-30 D1 gen2

[dustyroads]

Before you ask, I did not transpose the calcium and magnesium numbers. I'm giving you an accurate account of the Cat lab's report. I'm hoping that PQIA tests this oil someday.

I've never learned to decipher the ISO codes/ratings. Is this oil considered "dirty"?

As the title says, it is Dexos1 gen2 Castrol Edge 5W-30


Code:


Copper 0

Iron 1

Chrome 0

Aluminum 0

Lead 0

Tin 0



Silicon 5

Sodium 0

Potassium 4



Boron 49

Moly 70



Nickel 0

Silver 0



Titanium 9

Calcium 907

Magnesium 1492

Zinc 715

Phosphorus 566

Barium 0



Oxidation 10

Nitration 5

Sulfation 17



Water N



Viscosity @100° C 10.5



TAN 2.90

TBN 10.1



ISO rating 21/19/15



4 micron 17372

6 micron 3650

10 micron 830

14 micron 229

18 micron 116

21 micron 81

38 micron 19

50 micron 11

 

[parshisa]

Very good looking additive package as well as pretty impressive TBN! I’d run it in my Civic!

 

[wemay]

Originally Posted By: parshisa
Very good looking additive package as well as pretty impressive TBN! I’d run it in my Civic!


Agreed!

 

[Imp4]

What do you people look at when you evaluate a VOA??
is it "There's a nice slug of Moly in this one..."
or "Nice to see some Boron here... its expensive doncha know"
or 'Woah... TBN at 10.1!"
or "Better watch that Calcium level..."

Am I off base here or can you really not draw any significant conclusions by looking at a VOA???
Do you place two or three of these side by side and then opt for your favorite?
If so, based on what criteria?
What makes a product up to snuff and what tosses it from your consideration?

If someone can respond in a logical and insightful way it would be extremely helpful.
Also, if you have solid evaluation criteria, can you post a flow diagram or evaluation matrix for the rest of us?


Originally Posted By: parshisa
Very good looking additive package as well as pretty impressive TBN! I’d run it in my Civic!

Is there ever a time that you would say something along the lines of 'Hey, this API 5w30 SN+ that also has dexos 1 gen 2 approval just isn't good enough for my Civic, I mean, look at these VOA results!!!"
This just seems silly. When aren't there very good looking additive packages in d1 g2 oils?
I just seems like you're saying that the sky is blue, therefore its OK to come outside (and don't bring cloud cover into this....)

 

[Imp4]

.

 

[Snagglefoot]

RE: IMP4 : I used to question this as well, but it’s just Football talk for Bitgoers. “ That calcium level is going to be great this season but we’re really looking for big things from that magnesium squad. “ Relax and enjoy it.

 

[Imp4]

Originally Posted By: Snagglefoot
RE: IMP4 : I used to question this as well, but it’s just Football talk for Bitgoers. “ That calcium level is going to be great this season but we’re really looking for big things from that magnesium squad. “ Relax and enjoy it.

Yeah, but the difference is that motor oil formulation can be reduced to an engineered solution and therefore this drive-by observation and critique is meaningless.
Football on the other hand is fraught with human intangible factors therefore healthy debate can actually have value.

But I know what you mean.

 

[wemay]

Originally Posted By: Snagglefoot
RE: IMP4 : I used to question this as well, but it’s just Football talk for Bitgoers. “ That calcium level is going to be great this season but we’re really looking for big things from that magnesium squad. “ Relax and enjoy it.

This^^


In this case, TBN is excellent plus much lower Ca and wallop of Mag for DI is good to see as well.

All depends what you're looking for.

 

[Garak]

The most important thing is that one should be taking a VOA of the product before running trended UOAs, hopefully using the same lab and the same batch number to assist trending. That's the biggest value in a VOA.

 

[dustyroads]

Originally Posted By: Imp4
What do you people look at when you evaluate a VOA??
is it "There's a nice slug of Moly in this one..."
or "Nice to see some Boron here... its expensive doncha know"
or 'Woah... TBN at 10.1!"
or "Better watch that Calcium level..."

Am I off base here or can you really not draw any significant conclusions by looking at a VOA???


Originally Posted By: Imp4
Originally Posted By: Snagglefoot
RE: IMP4 : I used to question this as well, but it’s just Football talk for Bitgoers. “ That calcium level is going to be great this season but we’re really looking for big things from that magnesium squad. “ Relax and enjoy it.

Yeah, but the difference is that motor oil formulation can be reduced to an engineered solution and therefore this drive-by observation and critique is meaningless.


To answer your question; no we can't draw significant conclusions from an oil's VOA. To your point, I've been using a HDEO in my OTR truck that has little to nothing that the average BITOGer likes to see in an oil. That oil is by far the best HDEO I've ever used based on it's condition after a ridiculous amount of "exposure" (thank you dnewton3 for that term) in very long intervals of heavy duty use.

You say that a BITOGer's observation and critique is meaningless; it's also harmless. Many of us have read and learned a general idea of what each additive is there for and some people prefer to look at the base oil makeup. It's just good entertainment and trying to apply a little bit of what we've learned. Sure, we should be most concerned about the certs and approvals, but it's neat to look at the VOAs and see the different ways that they're formulated. We can't see much...but again, it's just for fun and conversation.

 

[dustyroads]

Originally Posted By: wemay
Originally Posted By: Snagglefoot
RE: IMP4 : I used to question this as well, but it’s just Football talk for Bitgoers. “ That calcium level is going to be great this season but we’re really looking for big things from that magnesium squad. “ Relax and enjoy it.

This^^


In this case, TBN is excellent plus much lower Ca and wallop of Mag for DI is good to see as well.

All depends what you're looking for.


Wemay, you've led the way in the education of BITOG regarding the issue of LSPI and the way the oil and additive industry have addressed it. Thanks for everything you have provided us to learn from.

I don't have an engine that is of concern, but I probably will before long. It's just interesting info, anyway.

I made the remark about my being accurate with the calcium/magnesium because of how different it was compared to the other D1G2 oils we've seen so far (more magnesium and higher total of the combined Ca/Mg). I hope that PQIA tests it to get another look.

 

[bbhero]

^^^^^^^^^

Really, really good post by dustyroads here.

And Wemay is a tremendously good member on here.

 

[wemay]

Thanks guys. Not necessary but humbly appreciated.

Virtus_Probi is another member well versed on this topic.

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted By: bbhero
^^^^^^^^^

Really, really good post by dustyroads here.

And Wemay is a tremendously good member on here.





Dittos on that.

 

[Patrick0525]

@dustyroads, I am looking at the particle count. What was the color of the voa oil submitted?

 

[1JZ_E46]

Armchair tribologists unite!

Originally Posted By: Snagglefoot
RE: IMP4 : I used to question this as well, but it’s just Football talk for Bitgoers. “ That calcium level is going to be great this season but we’re really looking for big things from that magnesium squad. “ Relax and enjoy it.

You know that's a good analogy, Snaggle. haha. I'll try to lighten up on the "nice looking add-pack" comments.

 

[dustyroads]

Originally Posted By: Patrick0525
@dustyroads, I am looking at the particle count. What was the color of the voa oil submitted?


Oh boy... I'm not sure what to call it. If I were home, I would snap a pic and try posting it, but I'm far away and will be for quite some time.

I wouldn't just call it gold, but not copper or bronze, either. A really, really dark gold is the best way I can describe it, I guess. Or maybe like a dark honey. It was easier to see on the dipstick than some oils but I don't want you to think it was dirty. It looked just fine.

Do you have any info regarding the particle counts and ISO code? I've seen some particle counts but I don't know what to call "dirty" or "clean". I'm not going to buy a bypass filter to clean it, but curious as to what to call this sample.

Edit-I think the dark honey color is the best description.

 

[Patrick0525]

Originally Posted By: dustyroads
Originally Posted By: Patrick0525
@dustyroads, I am looking at the particle count. What was the color of the voa oil submitted?


Oh boy... I'm not sure what to call it. If I were home, I would snap a pic and try posting it, but I'm far away and will be for quite some time.

I wouldn't just call it gold, but not copper or bronze, either. A really, really dark gold is the best way I can describe it, I guess. Or maybe like a dark honey. It was easier to see on the dipstick than some oils but I don't want you to think it was dirty. It looked just fine.

Do you have any info regarding the particle counts and ISO code? I've seen some particle counts but I don't know what to call "dirty" or "clean". I'm not going to buy a bypass filter to clean it, but curious as to what to call this sample.

Edit-I think the dark honey color is the best description.

The reason for asking is for comparative purposes: virgin vs used. I am no particle count (pc) expert but I have data for a 5K mi OC on a 10K mi oil filter. TGMO 0W-20 and Fram Ultra

TGMO & Fram Ultra

From your voa, I was initially surprised by the pc but filtration pc data from the Fram ultra suggests that large additive particles do get filtered out and the smaller 4 micron (dirt?? + additives??) did increase significantly.

It is a pity there is no TGMO VOA for pc.

 

[dustyroads]

Thanks Patrick, for linking your thread. I have to admit that I hadn't seen it (nor many others) because I'm so busy with work/business. When I get time to get on here, I can't stay awake to participate in the forums. I downloaded the PDF in your thread and that's what I was going to look for when I could.

I remember Shannow saying that he leaves the old filter on for a little while (I can't remember what distance he said) in order to filter out the big stuff in new oil. The idea being is that the old filter has gained efficiency and should catch some junk that a new filter may let through. I believe it's most common to see unimpressive PCs in new oil but I was wondering where my VOA ranked in general terms. And with that PDF I can see exactly where the ISO codes come from.

Regarding a VOA (with PC) of TGMO, you wouldn't want to compare anyone else's VOA to your UOA. Just like with viscosity, additives and TBN, it can vary from batch to batch as well as differences lab to lab. If you plan to get another UOA and want a fair before and after look, get a VOA of the same oil you poured into the engine and use the same lab for both.

 

[Patrick0525]

Originally Posted By: dustyroads
Thanks Patrick, for linking your thread. I have to admit that I hadn't seen it (nor many others) because I'm so busy with work/business. When I get time to get on here, I can't stay awake to participate in the forums. I downloaded the PDF in your thread and that's what I was going to look for when I could.

I remember Shannow saying that he leaves the old filter on for a little while (I can't remember what distance he said) in order to filter out the big stuff in new oil. The idea being is that the old filter has gained efficiency and should catch some junk that a new filter may let through. I believe it's most common to see unimpressive PCs in new oil but I was wondering where my VOA ranked in general terms. And with that PDF I can see exactly where the ISO codes come from.

Regarding a VOA (with PC) of TGMO, you wouldn't want to compare anyone else's VOA to your UOA. Just like with viscosity, additives and TBN, it can vary from batch to batch as well as differences lab to lab. If you plan to get another UOA and want a fair before and after look, get a VOA of the same oil you poured into the engine and use the same lab for both.




I agree.