The fact is all the oil companies play this labeling game. Once class III was made synthetic by some ruling all the oil companies started substituting it for IV and V with ever more vague labeling. Some of the synthetics oils still actually contain a portion of group IV and a few even a little group V. These oils and their ingredients change fast. M1 is the biggest violator on this ingredient merry-go-round. It is hard to keep up as this shell game makes these corporations money be they American or German. At least the labeling laws in Germany won't let the oil companies call group III full synthetic. This isn't a knock on group III oils. I just want some transparency when plunking down my money. The only places that seems transparent with their descriptions nowadays are Ravenol ,MPT and Red Line, although Red Line leaves something to be desired by making it seem their oils are majority ester based when they are not. The rest are dizzying in their lack of information and suggestive labeling.
Is Liquimoly Overrated?
- Thread starter ad244
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Originally Posted by TiGeo
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Engine flush and fuel additives. I know they're unnecessary but the temptation is strong.
Won't hurt anything. I'll be using Ceratec next change.
I worry about that product having a negative impact on my VVT hardware. Especially the solenoids. No way would I use it for my particular engine.
Makes sense.
Originally Posted by TiGeo
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Engine flush and fuel additives. I know they're unnecessary but the temptation is strong.
Won't hurt anything. I'll be using Ceratec next change.
I worry about that product having a negative impact on my VVT hardware. Especially the solenoids. No way would I use it for my particular engine.
Makes sense.
Originally Posted by sloinker
The fact is all the oil companies play this labeling game. Once class III was made synthetic by some ruling all the oil companies started substituting it for IV and V with ever more vague labeling. Some of the synthetics oils still actually contain a portion of group IV and a few even a little group V. These oils and their ingredients change fast. M1 is the biggest violator on this ingredient merry-go-round. It is hard to keep up as this shell game makes these corporations money be they American or German. At least the labeling laws in Germany won't let the oil companies call group III full synthetic. This isn't a knock on group III oils. I just want some transparency when plunking down my money. The only places that seems transparent with their descriptions nowadays are Ravenol ,MPT and Red Line, although Red Line leaves something to be desired by making it seem their oils are majority ester based when they are not. The rest are dizzying in their lack of information and suggestive labeling.
Precisely.
The fact is all the oil companies play this labeling game. Once class III was made synthetic by some ruling all the oil companies started substituting it for IV and V with ever more vague labeling. Some of the synthetics oils still actually contain a portion of group IV and a few even a little group V. These oils and their ingredients change fast. M1 is the biggest violator on this ingredient merry-go-round. It is hard to keep up as this shell game makes these corporations money be they American or German. At least the labeling laws in Germany won't let the oil companies call group III full synthetic. This isn't a knock on group III oils. I just want some transparency when plunking down my money. The only places that seems transparent with their descriptions nowadays are Ravenol ,MPT and Red Line, although Red Line leaves something to be desired by making it seem their oils are majority ester based when they are not. The rest are dizzying in their lack of information and suggestive labeling.
Precisely.
Originally Posted by sloinker
The fact is all the oil companies play this labeling game. Once class III was made synthetic by some ruling all the oil companies started substituting it for IV and V with ever more vague labeling. Some of the synthetics oils still actually contain a portion of group IV and a few even a little group V. These oils and their ingredients change fast. M1 is the biggest violator on this ingredient merry-go-round. It is hard to keep up as this shell game makes these corporations money be they American or German. At least the labeling laws in Germany won't let the oil companies call group III full synthetic. This isn't a knock on group III oils. I just want some transparency when plunking down my money. The only places that seems transparent with their descriptions nowadays are Ravenol ,MPT and Red Line, although Red Line leaves something to be desired by making it seem their oils are majority ester based when they are not. The rest are dizzying in their lack of information and suggestive labeling.
I feel like this is probably the overall gist of the thread. Makes sense
The fact is all the oil companies play this labeling game. Once class III was made synthetic by some ruling all the oil companies started substituting it for IV and V with ever more vague labeling. Some of the synthetics oils still actually contain a portion of group IV and a few even a little group V. These oils and their ingredients change fast. M1 is the biggest violator on this ingredient merry-go-round. It is hard to keep up as this shell game makes these corporations money be they American or German. At least the labeling laws in Germany won't let the oil companies call group III full synthetic. This isn't a knock on group III oils. I just want some transparency when plunking down my money. The only places that seems transparent with their descriptions nowadays are Ravenol ,MPT and Red Line, although Red Line leaves something to be desired by making it seem their oils are majority ester based when they are not. The rest are dizzying in their lack of information and suggestive labeling.
I feel like this is probably the overall gist of the thread. Makes sense
This is a bunch of uninformed nonsense. If the oil carries the required approval, specification or license required by the manufacturer then it will perform as required regardless of the base stock composition.
I agree that some unethical manufacturers and blenders like to obfuscate which approvals or specifications the oil actually carries, but most are clear. Their labels are not "dizzying in their lack of information". The continued focusing on base stocks over actual approvals and specifications is based on a notion that this information somehow is more technically relevant than the approvals and specs the oil carries. There is zero proof that is the case but if you have some, please provide it.
I agree that some unethical manufacturers and blenders like to obfuscate which approvals or specifications the oil actually carries, but most are clear. Their labels are not "dizzying in their lack of information". The continued focusing on base stocks over actual approvals and specifications is based on a notion that this information somehow is more technically relevant than the approvals and specs the oil carries. There is zero proof that is the case but if you have some, please provide it.
Originally Posted by kschachn
This is a bunch of uninformed nonsense. If the oil carries the required approval, specification or license required by the manufacturer then it will perform as required regardless of the base stock composition.
I agree that some unethical manufacturers and blenders like to obfuscate which approvals or specifications the oil actually carries, but most are clear. Their labels are not "dizzying in their lack of information". The continued focusing on base stocks over actual approvals and specifications is based on a notion that this information somehow is more technically relevant than the approvals and specs the oil carries. There is zero proof that is the case but if you have some, please provide it.
It should (it is not guaranteed it will once oil is exposed to various gasoline blends etc).
Also, specifications are upper maximum of restrictions. That does not mean there are no oils that perform much better (and theere are numerous available).
This is a bunch of uninformed nonsense. If the oil carries the required approval, specification or license required by the manufacturer then it will perform as required regardless of the base stock composition.
I agree that some unethical manufacturers and blenders like to obfuscate which approvals or specifications the oil actually carries, but most are clear. Their labels are not "dizzying in their lack of information". The continued focusing on base stocks over actual approvals and specifications is based on a notion that this information somehow is more technically relevant than the approvals and specs the oil carries. There is zero proof that is the case but if you have some, please provide it.
It should (it is not guaranteed it will once oil is exposed to various gasoline blends etc).
Also, specifications are upper maximum of restrictions. That does not mean there are no oils that perform much better (and theere are numerous available).
Originally Posted by edyvw
Also, specifications are upper maximum of restrictions. That does not mean there are no oils that perform much better (and there are numerous available).
Fine, what metrics are there that show that one oil that meets a spec performs "much better" than another?
The only one I could envision is that an oil also meets more stringent specifications in addition to the required one. But it still isn't based solely on base stock composition which is what several posters in this thread believe.
Also, specifications are upper maximum of restrictions. That does not mean there are no oils that perform much better (and there are numerous available).
Fine, what metrics are there that show that one oil that meets a spec performs "much better" than another?
The only one I could envision is that an oil also meets more stringent specifications in addition to the required one. But it still isn't based solely on base stock composition which is what several posters in this thread believe.
Originally Posted by kschachn
Originally Posted by edyvw
Also, specifications are upper maximum of restrictions. That does not mean there are no oils that perform much better (and there are numerous available).
Fine, what metrics are there that show that one oil that meets a spec performs "much better" than another?
NOACK
Sheer stability.
TBN retention.
TAN (but this is conditional to base stock as Group V tends to have higher numbers).
Originally Posted by edyvw
Also, specifications are upper maximum of restrictions. That does not mean there are no oils that perform much better (and there are numerous available).
Fine, what metrics are there that show that one oil that meets a spec performs "much better" than another?
NOACK
Sheer stability.
TBN retention.
TAN (but this is conditional to base stock as Group V tends to have higher numbers).
Last edited:
Oh come on. Noack is largely irrelevant and how do you measure shear stability here?
And as for TBN retention and TAN isn't that more related to engine condition and operating conditions? Really how important is that these days with low-sulfur fuel?
At least you didn't cite pour point and flash point.
And as for TBN retention and TAN isn't that more related to engine condition and operating conditions? Really how important is that these days with low-sulfur fuel?
At least you didn't cite pour point and flash point.
Originally Posted by kschachn
Oh come on. Noack is largely irrelevant and how do you measure shear stability here?
And as for TBN retention and TAN isn't that more related to engine condition and operating conditions? Really how important is that these days with low-sulfur fuel?
At least you didn't cite pour point and flash point.
NOACK is VERY relevant to CBU development and in diesels DPF longevity. Extremely relevant!
Sheer stability? How much cst drops over time? Numerous UOA are available for that. Champion in this was old version of Mobil1 0W40 (VISOM based).
How important with ULSG? There is still sulfur in it. It depends on fuel dilution of engine.
And pour point and flash point indicate base stock and SAPS. So yeah, they are important.
Oh come on. Noack is largely irrelevant and how do you measure shear stability here?
And as for TBN retention and TAN isn't that more related to engine condition and operating conditions? Really how important is that these days with low-sulfur fuel?
At least you didn't cite pour point and flash point.
NOACK is VERY relevant to CBU development and in diesels DPF longevity. Extremely relevant!
Sheer stability? How much cst drops over time? Numerous UOA are available for that. Champion in this was old version of Mobil1 0W40 (VISOM based).
How important with ULSG? There is still sulfur in it. It depends on fuel dilution of engine.
And pour point and flash point indicate base stock and SAPS. So yeah, they are important.
The majority of the UOA posted on here have no indication of whether a viscosity deviation is due to mechanical shear or fuel dilution. I'm not even sure I trust Blackstone to measure viscosity correctly based on some of the analysis they have given.
But Noack limits are specified in the approvals, correct? It's a test that has a high variability in results and can be measured in more than one method per the ASTM. Again it is a reported value that I do not place much value in, except to show it meets the approval or spec requirements. I would not use an unapproved or non-specified oil that had a low reported Noack just because of that value.
Pour point and flash point may indicate the base stock, but there again that gets back to my opinion that it is largely irrelevant.
But Noack limits are specified in the approvals, correct? It's a test that has a high variability in results and can be measured in more than one method per the ASTM. Again it is a reported value that I do not place much value in, except to show it meets the approval or spec requirements. I would not use an unapproved or non-specified oil that had a low reported Noack just because of that value.
Pour point and flash point may indicate the base stock, but there again that gets back to my opinion that it is largely irrelevant.
I've noticed a trend to your responses on subjects when they concern the larger oil companies. You are very quick to defend them against anything you perceive as a liability or shortcoming. You remind me of the lawyers for big tobacco from years past. Are you an industry lobbyist of some sort?
Originally Posted by kschachn
The majority of the UOA posted on here have no indication of whether a viscosity deviation is due to mechanical shear or fuel dilution. I'm not even sure I trust Blackstone to measure viscosity correctly based on some of the analysis they have given.
But Noack limits are specified in the approvals, correct? It's a test that has a high variability in results and can be measured in more than one method per the ASTM. Again it is a reported value that I do not place much value in, except to show it meets the approval or spec requirements. I would not use an unapproved or non-specified oil that had a low reported Noack just because of that value.
Pour point and flash point may indicate the base stock, but there again that gets back to my opinion that it is largely irrelevant.
I am not sure seriously where you going with this.
If you are questioning what companies report, Liqui Moly would be first on the list as "shady."
The majority of the UOA posted on here have no indication of whether a viscosity deviation is due to mechanical shear or fuel dilution. I'm not even sure I trust Blackstone to measure viscosity correctly based on some of the analysis they have given.
But Noack limits are specified in the approvals, correct? It's a test that has a high variability in results and can be measured in more than one method per the ASTM. Again it is a reported value that I do not place much value in, except to show it meets the approval or spec requirements. I would not use an unapproved or non-specified oil that had a low reported Noack just because of that value.
Pour point and flash point may indicate the base stock, but there again that gets back to my opinion that it is largely irrelevant.
I am not sure seriously where you going with this.
If you are questioning what companies report, Liqui Moly would be first on the list as "shady."
Originally Posted by kschachn
This is a bunch of uninformed nonsense. If the oil carries the required approval, specification or license required by the manufacturer then it will perform as required regardless of the base stock composition.
I agree that some unethical manufacturers and blenders like to obfuscate which approvals or specifications the oil actually carries, but most are clear. Their labels are not "dizzying in their lack of information". The continued focusing on base stocks over actual approvals and specifications is based on a notion that this information somehow is more technically relevant than the approvals and specs the oil carries. There is zero proof that is the case but if you have some, please provide it.
I agree with you 100%.
This is a bunch of uninformed nonsense. If the oil carries the required approval, specification or license required by the manufacturer then it will perform as required regardless of the base stock composition.
I agree that some unethical manufacturers and blenders like to obfuscate which approvals or specifications the oil actually carries, but most are clear. Their labels are not "dizzying in their lack of information". The continued focusing on base stocks over actual approvals and specifications is based on a notion that this information somehow is more technically relevant than the approvals and specs the oil carries. There is zero proof that is the case but if you have some, please provide it.
I agree with you 100%.
Originally Posted by sloinker
I've noticed a trend to your responses on subjects when they concern the larger oil companies. You are very quick to defend them against anything you perceive as a liability or shortcoming. You remind me of the lawyers for big tobacco from years past. Are you an industry lobbyist of some sort?
Who are you referring to?
I've noticed a trend to your responses on subjects when they concern the larger oil companies. You are very quick to defend them against anything you perceive as a liability or shortcoming. You remind me of the lawyers for big tobacco from years past. Are you an industry lobbyist of some sort?
Who are you referring to?
Originally Posted by sloinker
I've noticed a trend to your responses on subjects when they concern the larger oil companies. You are very quick to defend them against anything you perceive as a liability or shortcoming. You remind me of the lawyers for big tobacco from years past. Are you an industry lobbyist of some sort?
That is so silly as to be laughable. I just like fact-based discussion rather than unsubstantiated opinion, that's all.
I don't buy into the conspiracy theories either that the big bad oil companies (especially ExxonMobil as you cite) are doing this to confuse and fool the consumer. The oils still meet the published specifications and approvals, correct? At least when they are reported in a clear and unambiguous manner as ExxonMobil tends to do. When I wish to buy an oil that carries Porsche A40 approval (which I do for my old Sienna) there's no question that Mobil 1 0W-40 and Castrol 0W-40 have that approval. I appreciate clear labeling and listings, which not all blenders do, as I am sure you know.
I've noticed a trend to your responses on subjects when they concern the larger oil companies. You are very quick to defend them against anything you perceive as a liability or shortcoming. You remind me of the lawyers for big tobacco from years past. Are you an industry lobbyist of some sort?
That is so silly as to be laughable. I just like fact-based discussion rather than unsubstantiated opinion, that's all.
I don't buy into the conspiracy theories either that the big bad oil companies (especially ExxonMobil as you cite) are doing this to confuse and fool the consumer. The oils still meet the published specifications and approvals, correct? At least when they are reported in a clear and unambiguous manner as ExxonMobil tends to do. When I wish to buy an oil that carries Porsche A40 approval (which I do for my old Sienna) there's no question that Mobil 1 0W-40 and Castrol 0W-40 have that approval. I appreciate clear labeling and listings, which not all blenders do, as I am sure you know.
Originally Posted by kschachn
Originally Posted by sloinker
I've noticed a trend to your responses on subjects when they concern the larger oil companies. You are very quick to defend them against anything you perceive as a liability or shortcoming. You remind me of the lawyers for big tobacco from years past. Are you an industry lobbyist of some sort?
That is so silly as to be laughable. I just like fact-based discussion rather than unsubstantiated opinion, that's all.
I don't buy into the conspiracy theories either that the big bad oil companies (especially ExxonMobil as you cite) are doing this to confuse and fool the consumer. The oils still meet the published specifications and approvals, correct? At least when they are reported in a clear and unambiguous manner as ExxonMobil tends to do. When I wish to buy an oil that carries Porsche A40 approval (which I do for my old Sienna) there's no question that Mobil 1 0W-40 and Castrol 0W-40 have that approval. I appreciate clear labeling and listings, which not all blenders do, as I am sure you know.
It just seems that you are quick to defend the traditional oil companies and quicker to pounce on anything else. maybe that is just my impression. Hard to tell sometimes over the internet.
Originally Posted by sloinker
I've noticed a trend to your responses on subjects when they concern the larger oil companies. You are very quick to defend them against anything you perceive as a liability or shortcoming. You remind me of the lawyers for big tobacco from years past. Are you an industry lobbyist of some sort?
That is so silly as to be laughable. I just like fact-based discussion rather than unsubstantiated opinion, that's all.
I don't buy into the conspiracy theories either that the big bad oil companies (especially ExxonMobil as you cite) are doing this to confuse and fool the consumer. The oils still meet the published specifications and approvals, correct? At least when they are reported in a clear and unambiguous manner as ExxonMobil tends to do. When I wish to buy an oil that carries Porsche A40 approval (which I do for my old Sienna) there's no question that Mobil 1 0W-40 and Castrol 0W-40 have that approval. I appreciate clear labeling and listings, which not all blenders do, as I am sure you know.
It just seems that you are quick to defend the traditional oil companies and quicker to pounce on anything else. maybe that is just my impression. Hard to tell sometimes over the internet.
10 pages. Liquimoly is easily the currently most overdiscussed oil.
Originally Posted by sloinker
Originally Posted by kschachn
Originally Posted by sloinker
I've noticed a trend to your responses on subjects when they concern the larger oil companies. You are very quick to defend them against anything you perceive as a liability or shortcoming. You remind me of the lawyers for big tobacco from years past. Are you an industry lobbyist of some sort?
That is so silly as to be laughable. I just like fact-based discussion rather than unsubstantiated opinion, that's all.
I don't buy into the conspiracy theories either that the big bad oil companies (especially ExxonMobil as you cite) are doing this to confuse and fool the consumer. The oils still meet the published specifications and approvals, correct? At least when they are reported in a clear and unambiguous manner as ExxonMobil tends to do. When I wish to buy an oil that carries Porsche A40 approval (which I do for my old Sienna) there's no question that Mobil 1 0W-40 and Castrol 0W-40 have that approval. I appreciate clear labeling and listings, which not all blenders do, as I am sure you know.
It just seems that you are quick to defend the traditional oil companies and quicker to pounce on anything else. maybe that is just my impression. Hard to tell sometimes over the internet.
What is problem with traditional oil companies? Liqui Moly is also traditional oil company.
Originally Posted by kschachn
Originally Posted by sloinker
I've noticed a trend to your responses on subjects when they concern the larger oil companies. You are very quick to defend them against anything you perceive as a liability or shortcoming. You remind me of the lawyers for big tobacco from years past. Are you an industry lobbyist of some sort?
That is so silly as to be laughable. I just like fact-based discussion rather than unsubstantiated opinion, that's all.
I don't buy into the conspiracy theories either that the big bad oil companies (especially ExxonMobil as you cite) are doing this to confuse and fool the consumer. The oils still meet the published specifications and approvals, correct? At least when they are reported in a clear and unambiguous manner as ExxonMobil tends to do. When I wish to buy an oil that carries Porsche A40 approval (which I do for my old Sienna) there's no question that Mobil 1 0W-40 and Castrol 0W-40 have that approval. I appreciate clear labeling and listings, which not all blenders do, as I am sure you know.
It just seems that you are quick to defend the traditional oil companies and quicker to pounce on anything else. maybe that is just my impression. Hard to tell sometimes over the internet.
What is problem with traditional oil companies? Liqui Moly is also traditional oil company.
Originally Posted by vavavroom
10 pages. Liquimoly is easily the currently most overdiscussed oil.
Let's keep it going! #Liquimoly4lyfe..hahahahahaha
It's got a great a marketing campaign in the car enthusiast scene (VAG/Euro) for sure - I wouldn't have known about it until I started getting heavily into my VWs. The only thing I can see that is challenging w/r to LM and "false advertising" (and something that other companies do BTW) is sneaking in that an oil is "recommended for" a certain approval vs. "contains/has/whatever" the approval - LM does it with their Molygen oil - it doesn't have the approvals b/c I woudl suspect of the additive package but is "recommended for" which I believe is shady. Some online Euro retailers have admitted as much in their videos etc. and don't offer the product in oil change kits due to this. Look, we all know VW isn't going to ever ask you for your oil receipts/details for 99% of warranty claims but still, this could pose a tiny warranty risk for some folks. I'd like to give it a whirl next time around and also try their Ceratec additive.
10 pages. Liquimoly is easily the currently most overdiscussed oil.
Let's keep it going! #Liquimoly4lyfe..hahahahahaha
It's got a great a marketing campaign in the car enthusiast scene (VAG/Euro) for sure - I wouldn't have known about it until I started getting heavily into my VWs. The only thing I can see that is challenging w/r to LM and "false advertising" (and something that other companies do BTW) is sneaking in that an oil is "recommended for" a certain approval vs. "contains/has/whatever" the approval - LM does it with their Molygen oil - it doesn't have the approvals b/c I woudl suspect of the additive package but is "recommended for" which I believe is shady. Some online Euro retailers have admitted as much in their videos etc. and don't offer the product in oil change kits due to this. Look, we all know VW isn't going to ever ask you for your oil receipts/details for 99% of warranty claims but still, this could pose a tiny warranty risk for some folks. I'd like to give it a whirl next time around and also try their Ceratec additive.
- Status
Similar threads
