Ultimate Motor Oil Thread or Why we hate CJ4/SM oils

[cnavarro]

Originally Posted by Jandrews

Since you are a VW guy, what do you recommend for my 2.8 liter '99 Passat. It seems to "use" about a quart every 3,000 miles or so...not sure where it is going, because it doesn't leak or smoke. I have been using Rotella T 15w40 from Costco, but I don't think it is what it used to be.

Did you want to stay with a dino, blend, or full syn? What spec oil did that engine call for? I think 3k for one quart is very good. My wife's w8 passat uses nothing over 5k miles ('04). The TDI touareg on the other hand drinks oil - I don't think it likes those cold starts - it uses about 1/2- 3/4 a quart every 1000 mi. I run the old Motul 505.01 API SJ oil in both, each takes 12 Liters to fill! With the UOA, the 5 k drain on the W8 is right at about the 50% reduction point in the TBN. I just switched the treg to the Motul, so we'll see how long it goes - the last fill was with Castrol TXT 505.01 oe vw fill and it was 50% the starting TBN in about 3,000 miles. That said, what spec does your '99 call for on the oils?

[donstevens]

Originally Posted by cnavarro

That magazine posted a retraction after that was published as the testing was not valid for some reason, can't remember right now. Something about the inaccuracy of the test used or that the results aren't indicative of real world performance.

I have an original copy of that publication though, was very interesting to read nonetheless.

The problem with this kind of test is that it is only one piece for the puzzle. I this case it is the Extreme Pressure test with virgin oils at room temperature. Sure the friction of the gizmo creates some heat but it is nothing relative to what the oil might see in a turbo for example.

I have seen similar tests in the past where oils with high moly content (specifically Schaeffer products) perform extremely well. The moly tends to "plate up" on this type of device and once it does, it seems to resist as much pressure as the device can provide. That being said, I'd bet the RP, the Valvoline blend, and the Pennrite oils that they tested have relatively high concentrations of moly.

This test method means nothing relative to how any of the products will hold up to heat and by-products of combustion as found in real world situations. I think it is fairly safe to assume that the synthetic products tested will hold up to the heat but the only way to know how well any will preform in your car is UOA.

Don

[dshepp806]

Quite exhausting.........keep the info flowing.

Having used the Royal Purple Max Cycle 20W50 for 2 changes now (and in the process of blazing my Lab path), I'm a bit concerned about Moly content, particularly as related to deposits and a few comments relating to shearing, lab errors, etc.........

(ALL laid out in: Blackstone results...please comment )

I'm awaiting the lab results on the recent change watching copper.....and will certainly pose some more questions once I have the data......May consider stepping over to Brad Pen stuff.....I'm very curious as to Moly PPMs being high and what may come with this? Still trying to understand that Moly/copper (shearing) relation.....

Anyone comment on the Moly differences between the noted top 5 selections (Z&P aside), as related to our engines?

I don't think I've ever engaged something that has required so much read/reread in my life (that's coming from an EE)......certainly quite complex.

Ongoing thanks to the lube guys here who have invested so much time and have been so gracious with sharing their versed experiences/observations....truly priceless.



My best,

[scottb]

Originally Posted by cnavarro

That magazine posted a retraction after that was published as the testing was not valid for some reason, can't remember right now. Something about the inaccuracy of the test used or that the results aren't indicative of real world performance.

I have an original copy of that publication though, was very interesting to read nonetheless.

Charles' comment made me curious, so I e-mailed the editor of Street Commodores. Here is his response:

It was never retracted. One of the oil companies that performed less impressively than they would have liked refuted the testing procedure. We have since run an in-depth article on the make-up of oil and importance of different properties etc… This appeared in issue 132 and included information and quotes from various industry specialists including the complainant.

Regards,

Ben Hosking


When I asked him which company complained, he would not provide that information.

Scott

[David E. Clark]

Originally Posted by cnavarro

That magazine posted a retraction after that was published as the testing was not valid for some reason, can't remember right now. Something about the inaccuracy of the test used or that the results aren't indicative of real world performance.

I have an original copy of that publication though, was very interesting to read nonetheless.

Charles, this was discussed at great length in this post: Oil Test by Street Commodores Magazine in the Australian LS1 and Holden Forums.

[M.D. Holloway]

Originally Posted by donstevens

The problem with this kind of test is that it is only one piece for the puzzle. I this case it is the Extreme P...I have seen similar tests in the past where oils with high moly content (specifically Schaeffer products) perform extremely well. ....

Don

Don,
I know of this test you speak of. It is the portable FLC Lubricating Tester. A small journal is held against a rotating race. Load is applied as the race is rotated. An ampere meter is used to measure the energy requirements needed to spin the race at a prescribed rate. Force is applied manually on the journal. There is also a torque-measuring device located on the force arm. The force arm torque is adjusted by a turnbuckle. Failure occurs when the amperes exceed acceptable limits.

Results can be manipulated by varying the rate of torque on the force arm. A slow increase will provide one set of results. Also, by using quick increases in force, a grease containing molybdenum disulfide will quickly plate or “burn” onto the surface. If this technique is used at the beginning of the test, the test block will actually last longer at higher loads, thus producing a false performance value.

Here is a photo.







There are other tests that do not represent an application environment or are wrought with test variables that skew the results. Another test that comes to mind is the Timken OK load test which was developed many years ago by the Timken Bearing corporation to evaluate cutting fluids. Over the years it has been used to evaluate load carrying capacity of a lubricant. The test uses a tapered roller bearing race mounted on a rotating spindle.

The race rubs on a test block, which is mounted on a movable arm. The arm acts like a cantilever with a weight on the other end to produce a force on the race. Grease is continuously fed into the contact area as load is applied.

The test is run for ten minutes, after which the race and block are examined for scars. If the race and block pass, the test is run again at an increased load. This sequence is carried out until the test pieces show signs of failure. There are several variables that contribute to erroneous results. First of all, there are very few, if any, applications where grease would pass through the bearing or journal continuously with fresh grease. Secondly, it is difficult to determine the true onset of the scoring. It is only after each test sequence that the bearing and test blocks are examined. The results obtained from this test do not correlate to those of other wear test methods or even field data. The repeatability and reproducibility of results borders on 80%. That means that there is a chance that a lubricant could demonstrate 20% increase or decrease in results.

[dshepp806]

SO, it wasn't retracted after all.

Best,

[M.D. Holloway]

The test method was 'outlawed' by many BBB's around the country. I spoke about it years ago during an STLE meeting stating that it was a parlor trick and a sham. The marketing guys for the companies that promote that test were in the front row looking real uncomfortable.

Here are some tests that make sense - if you can get the oil companies to share this data with you then you can look to make a pretty good decision:



BTW - this is a table which I wrote and have published. You have my blessings to use it as you see fit (if you choose to wipe your butt with it, print it on aloa enriched paper!). Feel free to make sure you tell folks you got it from Mike Holloway!

[David E. Clark]

Originally Posted by scottb

Charles' comment made me curious, so I e-mailed the editor of Street Commodores. Here is his response:

It was never retracted. One of the oil companies that performed less impressively than they would have liked refuted the testing procedure. We have since run an in-depth article on the make-up of oil and importance of different properties etc… This appeared in issue 132 and included information and quotes from various industry specialists including the complainant.

Regards,

Ben Hosking


Scott

Looks like Red Line was the company that complained. Check out this thread.

[Jandrews]

Originally Posted by cnavarro

Did you want to stay with a dino, blend, or full syn? What spec oil did that engine call for? I think 3k for one quart is very good. My wife's w8 passat uses nothing over 5k miles ('04). The TDI touareg on the other hand drinks oil - I don't think it likes those cold starts - it uses about 1/2- 3/4 a quart every 1000 mi. I run the old Motul 505.01 API SJ oil in both, each takes 12 Liters to fill! With the UOA, the 5 k drain on the W8 is right at about the 50% reduction point in the TBN. I just switched the treg to the Motul, so we'll see how long it goes - the last fill was with Castrol TXT 505.01 oe vw fill and it was 50% the starting TBN in about 3,000 miles. That said, what spec does your '99 call for on the oils?

Charles,....the owner's manual for my 2.8 liter '99 Passat says "API Service SJ/CG4 or CG4". I don't mind using Dino or Synthetic or a blend... I'd just like to go with something that is relatively easy to get and very high quality lubrication. Thoughts?

Thanks,

JA

[dshepp806]

David,

So, friction modifiers was the deal?

Good pull!


Best,

[dshepp806]

or "were" the deal?


sorry,

[cnavarro]

Originally Posted by scottb

Charles' comment made me curious, so I e-mailed the editor of Street Commodores. Here is his response:

It was never retracted. One of the oil companies that performed less impressively than they would have liked refuted the testing procedure. We have since run an in-depth article on the make-up of oil and importance of different properties etc… This appeared in issue 132 and included information and quotes from various industry specialists including the complainant.

Regards,

Ben Hosking


When I asked him which company complained, he would not provide that information.

Scott

My mistake, I must have been thinking of another publication that did similar tests. Then I guess it wasn't withdrawn. Maybe I was reading somewhere about what Lubemaster mentioned about how the particular test method that publication used. That said, Sorry!

And yes, I'm willing to bet the oils that did better had tons of moly, and after reading how the moly interacts with surfaces, those results are what I would have expected.

[cnavarro]

Originally Posted by Jandrews

Charles,....the owner's manual for my 2.8 liter '99 Passat says "API Service SJ/CG4 or CG4". I don't mind using Dino or Synthetic or a blend... I'd just like to go with something that is relatively easy to get and very high quality lubrication. Thoughts?

Thanks,

JA

Brad Penn is an SJ oil, but I think 20w50 is too thick for that engine and the 10w30 is too light. A syn 5w40 or a dino 15w40 would be best. If you are currently using Rotella 15w40, why not something like Swepco 306 15w40. It's not an approved oil, but then again, I don't think the Rotella is a VW approved oil either and certainly, you're not under warranty anymore! Both my VWs are still under warranty, so I'm sticking to an approved oil, which I'm more than satisfied with the Motul 505.01 API SJ oil I am using.

I spent the better part of an hour trying to find somewhere I could get the Mobil 1 505.01 spec 5w40 oil, which also is an API SJ, but it is only marketed in Europe. Can anyone send me a quart? I'm curious to see how it's formulated differently than the M1 0w40 or the Truck and Diesel 5w40 sold here in the US, both of which do not meet the 505.01 spec.

That said, there are very few oils that meet both the Porsche spec AND the VW 505.01 spec, and those too are API SJ rated ACEA A3/B3 oils.

[Jandrews]

Thanks Charles! I assume I can order the Swepco 15w40 from you. I'll check your website. Then I'll go with the Brad Penn 20w50 for the 2.7RS in my 911.

But what about the big, bad V-Twin Chopper? Ultima El Bruto 113"....


JA

[cnavarro]

Our gracious host sells the Swepco 306.

Does the V-Twin share the lubricant between the engine and gearbox? I would venture to say Mobil 1 V-Twin or Amsoil Harley V-Twin - both are purpose built for those very stressed engines :-) Royal Purple Max Cycle, among other oils, even Harley's Syn 3 would be fine for a V-Twin. In general, oils specified for aircooled V-Twins have to be robust.

[Jandrews]

No, the motor and gearbox do not share oil. Thanks for those recommendations. By the way, what makes the V-Twin motor more stressed than the air-cooled 2.7 RS? Just curious.

Thanks again Charles,

JA

[cnavarro]

I would say the two are as stressed, but the V-Twin can see additional stresses on a hot day, in traffic, without adequate airflow, where at least the 2.7 has a proper fan and ducted cooling system.

[nize]

where does royal purple fit in all this?

[cnavarro]

I'd put Royal Purple and Redline in the same categories as Amsoil, Elf, Motul, Swepco, Brad Penn, and the m/c specific M1 V-Twin and MX4T oils from Mobil. Most of the smaller and specialty oil manufacturers do have some excellent formulations for certain lines or specific products, where the big players really could care less. It is just the majority of the oils I would consider using typically cannot be purchased at your FLAPS or cost as much or more than just buying online and having shipped, so it's typically a wash and doesn't cost that much more to seek out a better oil than to make due with what is easily available.