Shell vs Delvac

[Dodgetracker]

Originally Posted By: BobFout
Guys, TDT is (primarily) designed for pickup trucks. The Delvac line is for heavy duty use.


No Sir,,, that's not true.

 

[4WD]

Originally Posted By: Dodgetracker
Originally Posted By: BobFout
Guys, TDT is (primarily) designed for pickup trucks. The Delvac line is for heavy duty use.


No Sir,,, that's not true.


Well, TDT has a pickup on the bottle and Delvac has a big rig … so we can certainly say they are marketing it that way.
Having said that … I know guys with a 2017 PSD F250, 2014 Ram 3500, and a 2015 Duramax running Delvac 1 …
They all trailer heavy (have cattle and land) … and use the same oil in equipment …

 

[Gokhan]

I've always thought Delvac was better than Rotella. I see that Rotella CK-4 no longer has moly, which is not good. Delvac still has the trinuclear moly ("trimer" additive technology as they put it in the CJ-4 data sheet) but they've reduced it in CK-4.

Incidentally I calculated the A_Harman index for Delvac 15W-40 CK-4 to be 0.982, which is the highest A_Harman index of any off-the-shelf oil out there, higher than any synthetic oil. So, Delvac 15W-40 CK-4 is the current top-place holder for the A_Harman index among all nonboutique oils out there. It seems to be virtually VII-free. Therefore, It would have to be Group II+ and I don't understand how it would fail the oxidation test.

 

[Gokhan]

Of course, Mobil 1 Turbo Diesel Truck 5W-40 is not meant for heavy-duty trucks. It doesn't have a single OEM certification other than Caterpillar ECF-3. Delvac has all kinds of OEM certifications for 18-wheelers on the other hand.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: 4WD
Lots of trust in Shell … but watch the pile on over this:

https://www.mobil.com/en/mobil-delvac/improving-your-business/conventional-oil-synthetic-oil


Yeah, despite this being a different grade, Mobil's claims completely contradict Shell's claims

 

[nap]

Not really.

Mobil claims better results in wear.

Shell claims Mobil completely fails the oxidation test.

They're not mutually exclusive.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: nap
Not really.

Mobil claims better results in wear.

Shell claims Mobil completely fails the oxidation test.

They're not mutually exclusive.


One would think that if they are running the CK-4 tests (acknowledged caveat: we are talking about a different grade) that deficiencies, like not passing, are going to show up. Of course one is going to run with the metrics in which their product has proven superior, but since both claims revolve around the CK-4 testing protocols, they run, perhaps not directly, but contrary to each other.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: 4WD
Lots of trust in Shell … but watch the pile on over this:

https://www.mobil.com/en/mobil-delvac/improving-your-business/conventional-oil-synthetic-oil

Yeah, despite this being a different grade, Mobil's claims completely contradict Shell's claims

Of course, Delvac has far better wear protection than Rotella and Delo because Delvac has trinuclear moly ("trimer additive technology" as described in their previous, CJ-4 data sheet), whereas Rotella and Delo scrapped moly all together in CK-4 to reduce ash. Rotella also has the outdated calcium-only detergent technology with no magnesium.

Rotella has definitely fallen far behind the competition with CK-4. I'm waiting for Delvac's response on the base-oil oxidation. I doubt the Rotella tests are right. I'm pretty sure Delvac has a quality Group II+ base oil. As I pointed out, Delvac 15W-40 CK-4 has A_Harman index = 0.982, which means virtually no VII.

 

[buster]

I believe Shell probably did find the Mobil oil to not meet the specification. The question I have is why and how prevelant is it within the supply? It's things like this that make me wonder how consistent the quality is among the supply. Do some of these companies intentially cut back after meeting specifications knowing that few companies will spend $200,000 to test a competitors product? That's hopefully not the case but you never know.

 

[BobFout]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Of course, Mobil 1 Turbo Diesel Truck 5W-40 is not meant for heavy-duty trucks. It doesn't have a single OEM certification other than Caterpillar ECF-3. Delvac has all kinds of OEM certifications for 18-wheelers on the other hand.


Yes, this is what I was alluding to. Someone was commenting about how TDT didn't have builder approvals. It's not meant to.

 

[rileyc]

Posted 7/2/18

The PQIA Speaks to Shell's Claim about Mobil Delvac 1300 Super 15W-40:

http://pqiamerica.com/index.html

 

[OVERKILL]

Good read, thanks for the share

 

[RooflessVW]

Very good, thanks for sharing.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Of course, Delvac has far better wear protection than Rotella and Delo because Delvac has trinuclear moly ("trimer additive technology" as described in their previous, CJ-4 data sheet), whereas Rotella and Delo scrapped moly all together in CK-4 to reduce ash. Rotella also has the outdated calcium-only detergent technology with no magnesium.

Moly in levels we see in most PCMOs and HDEOs are not at AW levels, trimer or not, they are at friction modification levels. Every formulator on this site and every piece of literature out there will verify that. There are Rotella variants with magnesium additive packages, by the way. Look here.

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Rotella has definitely fallen far behind the competition with CK-4. I'm waiting for Delvac's response on the base-oil oxidation. I doubt the Rotella tests are right. I'm pretty sure Delvac has a quality Group II+ base oil. As I pointed out, Delvac 15W-40 CK-4 has A_Harman index = 0.982, which means virtually no VII.

I hope you don't tweak your back with the logical flip flopping over a couple threads here. Now, you have no trust in Shell testing Delvac and finding it wanting. Now, I would suggest that it's a batch variation, and still have complete confidence in Delvac. But, something clearly happened. Shell wouldn't say what they did without concrete, verifiable test results and clearance from their legal department. So, you don't believe Shell's test results on one lot number of Delvac, but in this same subforum, you call out Rotella over a gasoline flat tappet issue, when the person was using high spring pressures and did not follow break in procedures and use a dedicated break in lube, which should have been done? This is a deficiency in Rotella?

At least one batch of Delvac was found not meeting the requirements for license and builder approvals, and you don't believe it. Someone uses Rotella as a break in lube, which is not its purpose, provides one anecdotal failure, and you condemn the product based on that?

 

[jakewells]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Of course, Delvac has far better wear protection than Rotella and Delo because Delvac has trinuclear moly ("trimer additive technology" as described in their previous, CJ-4 data sheet), whereas Rotella and Delo scrapped moly all together in CK-4 to reduce ash. Rotella also has the outdated calcium-only detergent technology with no magnesium.

Moly in levels we see in most PCMOs and HDEOs are not at AW levels, trimer or not, they are at friction modification levels. Every formulator on this site and every piece of literature out there will verify that. There are Rotella variants with magnesium additive packages, by the way. Look here.

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Rotella has definitely fallen far behind the competition with CK-4. I'm waiting for Delvac's response on the base-oil oxidation. I doubt the Rotella tests are right. I'm pretty sure Delvac has a quality Group II+ base oil. As I pointed out, Delvac 15W-40 CK-4 has A_Harman index = 0.982, which means virtually no VII.

I hope you don't tweak your back with the logical flip flopping over a couple threads here. Now, you have no trust in Shell testing Delvac and finding it wanting. Now, I would suggest that it's a batch variation, and still have complete confidence in Delvac. But, something clearly happened. Shell wouldn't say what they did without concrete, verifiable test results and clearance from their legal department. So, you don't believe Shell's test results on one lot number of Delvac, but in this same subforum, you call out Rotella over a gasoline flat tappet issue, when the person was using high spring pressures and did not follow break in procedures and use a dedicated break in lube, which should have been done? This is a deficiency in Rotella?

At least one batch of Delvac was found not meeting the requirements for license and builder approvals, and you don't believe it. Someone uses Rotella as a break in lube, which is not its purpose, provides one anecdotal failure, and you condemn the product based on that?

+1

 

[53' Stude]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Of course, Delvac has far better wear protection than Rotella and Delo because Delvac has trinuclear moly ("trimer additive technology" as described in their previous, CJ-4 data sheet), whereas Rotella and Delo scrapped moly all together in CK-4 to reduce ash. Rotella also has the outdated calcium-only detergent technology with no magnesium.

Moly in levels we see in most PCMOs and HDEOs are not at AW levels, trimer or not, they are at friction modification levels. Every formulator on this site and every piece of literature out there will verify that. There are Rotella variants with magnesium additive packages, by the way. Look here.



Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Rotella has definitely fallen far behind the competition with CK-4. I'm waiting for Delvac's response on the base-oil oxidation. I doubt the Rotella tests are right. I'm pretty sure Delvac has a quality Group II+ base oil. As I pointed out, Delvac 15W-40 CK-4 has A_Harman index = 0.982, which means virtually no VII.

I hope you don't tweak your back with the logical flip flopping over a couple threads here. Now, you have no trust in Shell testing Delvac and finding it wanting. Now, I would suggest that it's a batch variation, and still have complete confidence in Delvac. But, something clearly happened. Shell wouldn't say what they did without concrete, verifiable test results and clearance from their legal department. So, you don't believe Shell's test results on one lot number of Delvac, but in this same subforum, you call out Rotella over a gasoline flat tappet issue, when the person was using high spring pressures and did not follow break in procedures and use a dedicated break in lube, which should have been done? This is a deficiency in Rotella?

At least one batch of Delvac was found not meeting the requirements for license and builder approvals, and you don't believe it. Someone uses Rotella as a break in lube, which is not its purpose, provides one anecdotal failure, and you condemn the product based on that?


Yeah, Gokhan doesn't know what he is talking about as usual. One day he LOVES PYB the next he loves M1. Go figure

 

[Gokhan]

Mobil Delvac Super 1300 and Shell Rotella T4 are both conventional HDEOs formulated for the same API and OEM certifications. You must be a fool to think that they or any similar oil will perform as apples vs. oranges as Shell claims to have discovered in their tests done at an "independent" facility.

Oxidation is determined by the base oil. You can't claim that a donkey is a horse. A conventional base oil is a conventional base oil. If you want better oxidation resistance, you need a synthetic.

Using the PQIA data, I calculated the relative base-oil-quality index BOQI ~ 1/NOACK/CCS and they are similar, with Delvac's BOQI being 3% higher.

Also, don't forget that Delvac has passed all tests Shell claims it failed and they have stated so after the claims.

With the high-wear claims on Mobil 1 in the past, it was clearly seen in the UOAs as iron values that were sky-high. If Shell's oxidation claims on Delvac are true, we will see the oil thickening/viscosity increase in the UOAs. So, let's see them! In fact fleet operators regularly do UOAs. Don't you think they would have not been seeing and reporting the oil thickening that Shell claims?

 

[Garak]

I already said what I believe happened. There was a bad batch. That would mean Shell is technically correct for what they've tested. It doesn't mean anything about Delvac 1300 as a product line. I've already expressed complete confidence in the product. Bad stuff happens, though.

I guarantee that whatever batch Shell found wanting, they have samples of it available, particularly because this sort of thing can result in litigation. It could also result in questions from builders and the API.

Given the stakes and Shell's ability to test oils themselves, at least from an outsider, it looks pretty obvious what happened. I gather that Shell and everyone else with the facilities tests the competition, particularly if someone places a bug in someone's ear. Shell's own testing found a bad batch. They submitted samples for independent testing. We find ourselves where we are now. I would suggest that if an oil company finds problems with preliminary testing of a large competitor's main line product, they will run the samples through the gamut of testing. It's a marketing bonanza.

I'm not interested in the base stocks or what UOAs are saying, first because there's no evidence that this is a formula problem with Delvac 1300. If it was, there wouldn't have been CK-4 approval, not to mention builder approvals, in the first place. Secondly, a UOA has less ability to determine whether an oil met the approvals in the first place, even less ability than a VOA, and the PQIA stepped up to remind us of such, particularly considering they've tested HDEOs int he past. Thickening that would show up during builder approval tests and ACEA sequence testing may not show up in UOAs, but a failure of a builder approval test or an ACEA sequence test is still a failure, no matter how it's sliced.

My real point, which you've skated over, is that you're giving Delvac 1300 a pass despite the fact that Shell is clearly sticking its neck out here and will have evidence to back up the statement, yet you condemn Rotella because some darned fool used it as a break in lube and it "didn't work," which is anecdotal and subject to all the failures that accompany anecdotal evidence. He had high spring pressures. We don't know the quality of the parts he used. We know that he didn't follow proper break in procedures, but the entire lesson you presented out of that was "Rotella."

So, that entire dichotomy has been skipped over, not to mention the moly confusion.

 

[Gokhan]

To give some credit to Shell's claims, I'm suspecting that the conventional 15W-40 HDEOs on the market today are still mostly Group I ("dino") with some Group II mixed in to increase the oxidation performance and decrease the volatility.

If I used the base-oil-quality index BOQI = 930,000/(DV-20)/NOACK for 15W-xx oils, I get BOQI = 13 for Rotella and BOQI = 14 for Delvac. These are very low, very low BOQI's, indicating that they are mostly Group I (dino) motor oils. In contrast, no Group II oil scores below 20 and most Group II oils score around 25 - 30. Group III scores higher (35 - 45) and GTL and PAO can score 60 - 70 or more.

So, basically we have one dino (Group I) oil claiming that it's better than another dino oil here (a war of the dinosaurs)! However, given the very loose "API base-oil interchangeability guidelines" that govern what the oil blenders can do with their base oil in between tests (how they can use different base stocks in their base oils without retesting), do you believe any oil-oxidation test done on any Group I/dino oil with some Group II blended in? I don't! In other words I expect the oxidation tests on such Group I/dino oils to be all over the place depending on the batch and what they did under the API base-oil interchangeability guidelines between batches. So, simply disregard any claim for the base-oil quality/oxidation of a Group I/dino oil. You simply don't buy a Group I/dino oil based on its oxidation performance. It will fail when pushed too hard or too long. It's big deal if a certain batch of Delvac fails a strict oxidation test. Same is true for Rotella, their certain batches will also fail as they monkey around with their mostly Group I/dino base oil in their production. Ironically I doubt if European OEMs such as Volvo even think about Group I/dino base oils when they come up with such base-oil-oxidation tests. This is what happens when API adopts a European-OEM test on base oil -- total chaos!

Now, I finally do understand what has been going on in this travesty. I had never thought that Delvac and Rotella were still mostly Group I/dino until I calculated their BOQI's. Now that we know that they are mostly Group I/dino, simply ignore any meaningless oxidation test designed by a European OEM for synthetic oils on an oil that's not meant for long OCIs (20,000 miles) in highly demanding turbo engines. It may pass or fail depending on the batch but it's fairly random and meaningless -- such tests are simply out of the scope of Group I/dino oils.

 

[Garak]

It's not relevant if it's a war of the dinosaurs, as it were. Mobil got caught with their pants down on one batch, it would seem. While people don't buy an oil based upon oxidation performance, people do buy based upon SAE viscosity, service category, and possibly builder approvals.

These 15w-40 options, dinosaurs or not, still do have a very, very significant following and carry the relevant builder approvals, current API approvals, and ACEA E7, E9. They are aiming at a couple high end specifications. I'm not totally surprised about an issue coming about early in a service category's life, too, which winds up being fairly early in the formulation's life cycle. As I said, I still have complete confidence in the product in question.

One, however, cannot blame Shell or anyone else from trying to make some hay for this.