Valvoline synpower claims 4X better protection than Mobil One
- Thread starter Early93Viper
- Start date
Grant
Viper Owner
Well, M1 isn't exactly the best synthetic out there (and there is some talk that its no longer even a full synthetic). German Castrol (only available in 0w30) is considered much better by people who do regular UOAs.
Most people think high-temperature high-sheer ratings (HTHS) are the most indicative of how well the oil protects against bearing and cylinder wall wear. Redline, Motul and Amsoil all have significantly better HTHS ratings than M1 (for a given viscosity).
Can anyone find HTHS ratings for Valvoline Synpower? Its not in their datasheets. I'm not sure if they publish it.
Most people think high-temperature high-sheer ratings (HTHS) are the most indicative of how well the oil protects against bearing and cylinder wall wear. Redline, Motul and Amsoil all have significantly better HTHS ratings than M1 (for a given viscosity).
Can anyone find HTHS ratings for Valvoline Synpower? Its not in their datasheets. I'm not sure if they publish it.
VIPER BAZ UK
Enthusiast
This is what i use in my Transnission (as i cant get castrol syntorq over here)...
Tom F&L GoR
Enthusiast
Vavloline seems to be plucking favorable single data points from the wide variety of tests needed to meet the overall criteria and then touting them as an performance advantage. This is probably not true. If they were really "better" then they would show fleet test results, something all oil marketers have access to. (While you do have to pass the engine dyno tests, you don't have to conduct fleet tests on each and every oil formulation. But you do have to have field experience showing your formulation would be good in the field - this puts the burden on the marketers so they don't come up with a formulation that beats all the tests, yet stinks in the real world.)
The %Phosphorus retention data shows Valvoline had more of this good material in the oil after a 20 hour test. While it is true that phosphorus is part of the additive that helps protect the engine against wear and that having more in the oil would be a good thing, this test was put in place to measure something else. The OEMs are concerned that phosphorus harms catalysts and that the phosphorus additive is volatile (boils off during high temperatures). The test was put into place to measure the amount of phosphorus additive that boils off and wear measurements are secondary. This is really a catalyst protection evaluation. Valvoline is doing the "if A=B and B=C, then A=C" thing here.
The other data shown is that the Valvoline engine wear after 100 hours is 4X less than Mobil. (Note that they are switching tests here, so this is the B=C part.) The graph I found does not have a scale. One might assume it means that engines with Valvoline will last 4X longer, but I see this as a Valvoline oil had 1 Part Per Million of iron wear metal in the used oil, Mobil had 4 PPM, and to pass the test, the result had to be less than 100 PPM. While I have no doubt the numbers are statistically significant, I cannot believe it is significant to the consumer. Why not? Because all these engine tests are designed in cooperation with the OEMs, the oil marketers, and the additive companies. The fundamental objective is to simulate an engine's lifetime in a short period of, in this case, 100 hours. The variability of normal engine testing to predict such use has always meant that the results are pass/fail only. If Mobil passes and if Valvoline passes, then the entire lubricant industry has agreed (by their participation in the statistically designed testing process) that there is no difference in the field.
You still might ask, so what? If there is even one little difference, isn't that enough to slant your purchase toward Valvoline? Not really. Additives are all surface-active and they compete for metal surface sites. Friction modifiers, anti-wear additives, and detergents all push each other around to find metals. Each one has a preferred temperature at which it can stick to the surface the best. The 100 hour test (it is not named) might be a low temperature wear evaluation, which does not necessarily predict high temperature wear. You might ask Valvoline what the wear results from all the other tests wear, and ask how Mobil did in those, too.
As far as not being full synthetic - recall that a highly refined mineral base oil, called Group III, is able to be called a synthetic. Castrol started this and most marketers use Group III instead of "original" synthetics because they are cheaper and the performance is equivalent. Don't pick on Mobil for this and believe Castrol is being a saint.
The HTHS viscosity is a good indicator of oil film thickness. However, it is now part of the SAE specfications to place an oil into a viscosity grade. To say one oil is better is a stretch, since it is like saying one SAE 30 is a little thicker than another SAE 30, so it must be better. Well, then, just use an SAE 40 for the same justification.
Here's the takeaway - the technical folks found a statistical difference in the myriad of test results, told the marketing folks, convinced the lawyers it's safe to say, and they made a commercial out of it. They did not say engines last longer, did not say that cars in the real world have lower wear, and did not show any fleet tests that evaluate a lifetime of use (over multiple oil changes); they only showed results of highly shortened, compressed, abbreviated tests (one oil change) that are meant to predict service. Is it really better?
The %Phosphorus retention data shows Valvoline had more of this good material in the oil after a 20 hour test. While it is true that phosphorus is part of the additive that helps protect the engine against wear and that having more in the oil would be a good thing, this test was put in place to measure something else. The OEMs are concerned that phosphorus harms catalysts and that the phosphorus additive is volatile (boils off during high temperatures). The test was put into place to measure the amount of phosphorus additive that boils off and wear measurements are secondary. This is really a catalyst protection evaluation. Valvoline is doing the "if A=B and B=C, then A=C" thing here.
The other data shown is that the Valvoline engine wear after 100 hours is 4X less than Mobil. (Note that they are switching tests here, so this is the B=C part.) The graph I found does not have a scale. One might assume it means that engines with Valvoline will last 4X longer, but I see this as a Valvoline oil had 1 Part Per Million of iron wear metal in the used oil, Mobil had 4 PPM, and to pass the test, the result had to be less than 100 PPM. While I have no doubt the numbers are statistically significant, I cannot believe it is significant to the consumer. Why not? Because all these engine tests are designed in cooperation with the OEMs, the oil marketers, and the additive companies. The fundamental objective is to simulate an engine's lifetime in a short period of, in this case, 100 hours. The variability of normal engine testing to predict such use has always meant that the results are pass/fail only. If Mobil passes and if Valvoline passes, then the entire lubricant industry has agreed (by their participation in the statistically designed testing process) that there is no difference in the field.
You still might ask, so what? If there is even one little difference, isn't that enough to slant your purchase toward Valvoline? Not really. Additives are all surface-active and they compete for metal surface sites. Friction modifiers, anti-wear additives, and detergents all push each other around to find metals. Each one has a preferred temperature at which it can stick to the surface the best. The 100 hour test (it is not named) might be a low temperature wear evaluation, which does not necessarily predict high temperature wear. You might ask Valvoline what the wear results from all the other tests wear, and ask how Mobil did in those, too.
As far as not being full synthetic - recall that a highly refined mineral base oil, called Group III, is able to be called a synthetic. Castrol started this and most marketers use Group III instead of "original" synthetics because they are cheaper and the performance is equivalent. Don't pick on Mobil for this and believe Castrol is being a saint.
The HTHS viscosity is a good indicator of oil film thickness. However, it is now part of the SAE specfications to place an oil into a viscosity grade. To say one oil is better is a stretch, since it is like saying one SAE 30 is a little thicker than another SAE 30, so it must be better. Well, then, just use an SAE 40 for the same justification.
Here's the takeaway - the technical folks found a statistical difference in the myriad of test results, told the marketing folks, convinced the lawyers it's safe to say, and they made a commercial out of it. They did not say engines last longer, did not say that cars in the real world have lower wear, and did not show any fleet tests that evaluate a lifetime of use (over multiple oil changes); they only showed results of highly shortened, compressed, abbreviated tests (one oil change) that are meant to predict service. Is it really better?
Last edited:
Grant
Viper Owner
Some UOAs have shown M1 to sheer down to a lower weight oil under track conditions, while other oils seem to be more resilient. Wouldn't this indicate a lower-quality base stock? Of course, I realize M1 is likely more than sufficient for ordinary use.
Aren't those just minimums, e.g. a SAE 10w30 must have a HTHS of 2.9 cP @ 150C of better? Motul's oils seem to be roughly the same viscosity as M1, but have much better HTHS ratings. I'd think that would make Motul a "better" oil for track use, right?
Thanks for the info; I didn't realize we had someone in the industry on the forums.
eucharistos
Enthusiast
yeah another Viper asset
it ain't braggin' if it's true
thanks tom
JKVIPER
Enthusiast
All I can say is that I have 230,000 miles on my Lexus V8 engine and it does not burn or use any oil between changes. I change the oil every 5000 miles with Mobil 1.
It can't be too bad.
It can't be too bad.
I have 398,000 on my honda and will hit 400,000 before year's end,and it doesn't burn or use any oil between oil changes! I use cheap regular bulk 10w30 oil!!!
What's your point???
Early93Viper
Enthusiast
Tom you are one of the most indespensible members of this site.
Thank you.
Thank you.Tom F&L GoR
Enthusiast
Base oil has nothing to do with shear. The additive that "shears" is the large molecular weight viscosity modifier additive. When it breaks (through use) then it cannot thicken the oil as much and the formulation will be measured as thinner.
Also, the comparison must be same engine, using both oils. Otherwise the fuel dilution, time, use, etc, makes any such comparison invalid.
Yes, HTHS requirements are minimums and higher HTHS can be achieved with a slightly higher base oil viscosity and certain types of viscosity index improver additive. The trade-off is that a higher base oil viscosity (i.e. the starting point of a formulation) requires the use of less additives. Additives are thick, but don't predictably contribute to HTHS. To repeat myself, you can have more additives and a little thinner base oil and slightly lower HTHS... or ... less additive, thicker base oil and higher HTHS. Which oil is better? It's always a balance.
Yes, 20+ years at Texaco and then Chevron on top of an engineering degree. But learned a lot with the race teams, lawyers, marketing, advertising, etc, too.
agentf1
Enthusiast
Isn't this what BMW is using in all of their new cars?
And they only require changing every 15,000 miles which I think is crazy.
Tom,
I need your opinion. Over the years I have learned a lot about lubricants, sometimes the hard way. What is good for one application is not so good for another. It depends on the vehicle, the design and it's use. Gear oils can be really specific depending on the application.
In regards to engine oil, I can only go with what works for us. I have had customers who swear by Royal Purple, Amzoil, Red Line etc. I worked with CDI years ago when they were doing the GTSR endurance program and they swore by Mobil 1. I think Mobil was a sponsor.
When we started tracking the SRT Vipers; there was a big problem with oil pressure loss in corners.
We were having engines fail from oil starvation. A fix was in the works, but in the meantime we used a racing oil (Motul 15w-50). This oil somehow protected the motors for short periods without oil pressure (An additive). I have used this oil in race engines ever since.
What makes this oil work so well? I have noticed that oil temperatures are lower and engines tend to make less mechanical noise when cold.
My biggest question is. Is there better more cost effective oil for the Viper than Mobil 1?
Dan Cragin
I need your opinion. Over the years I have learned a lot about lubricants, sometimes the hard way. What is good for one application is not so good for another. It depends on the vehicle, the design and it's use. Gear oils can be really specific depending on the application.
In regards to engine oil, I can only go with what works for us. I have had customers who swear by Royal Purple, Amzoil, Red Line etc. I worked with CDI years ago when they were doing the GTSR endurance program and they swore by Mobil 1. I think Mobil was a sponsor.
When we started tracking the SRT Vipers; there was a big problem with oil pressure loss in corners.
We were having engines fail from oil starvation. A fix was in the works, but in the meantime we used a racing oil (Motul 15w-50). This oil somehow protected the motors for short periods without oil pressure (An additive). I have used this oil in race engines ever since.
What makes this oil work so well? I have noticed that oil temperatures are lower and engines tend to make less mechanical noise when cold.
My biggest question is. Is there better more cost effective oil for the Viper than Mobil 1?
Dan Cragin
Tom F&L GoR
Enthusiast
Hi Dan. I'll say up front I would have a tough time answering your question. Even if I knew all the answers, I try not to promote one brand over another. I try to inform people of what to look for and let them make their own choices. Otherwise I end up being thought of as just the guy that likes or dislikes so-n-so oil.
I do admire the clarity of your statement that what is good for one is not always good for another. This is very true for gear oils, and I would add manual transmission oils, too.
I'll start with the clues you gave - lower oil temperatures and less noise. So it behaves like a thin oil, yet is labeled a 15W? To formulate an oil, you start with unadditized base oils and mix two or three to give you the starting viscosity you want. (The additives and the viscosity index improver will change it later from this starting point.) With mineral oils you could not pick too low (thin) a base oil as the lower viscosity oil because it would be too volatile and evaporate in use. With a synthetic, however, this is not an issue and you can use a very thin oil. To get your target starting viscosity, you then mix a very very low viscosity oil with a very, very high viscosity oil. The result is that the mixture still begins at the starting viscosity you wanted, but needs less viscosity index improver additive to make it a multigrade. Not only does it act like a multigrade, but it shears down less (does not thin with use) because there are less (or no) viscosity index improver additives to breakdown. Usually it is the large molecular weight viscosity index improver additives that also cause the oil to run a little hotter because their size creates more friction. Lastly, why the oil is only a 15W is likely because it meets the 0W test for "flow" but fails on "thickness." This has a lot to do with how the test limits were chosen - for mineral oils. A synthetic will almost never turn solid, yet a mineral oil will. So the "thickness" test exists and does have a pass/fail limit. Frankly, if mineral oils didn't exist, this test could be dropped, and I'll bet the Motul would be a dandy 0W-50.
Anyway, that's my opinion. They mix a very high and very low base synthetic base oil, it has a very wide temperature range (wider than expected given the label) and with less viscosity index improver, it runs a little cooler. I believe the third base oil they use is an ester, which by itself has a greater than usual viscosity range and a stronger affinity to metals. Some marketers have advertised this better frictional characteristics because they believe there is always more oil on the surface.
Finally, if this is what Motul does, it will be more expensive. Last time I formulated, the additives and normal viscosity PAO base oils were about the same price. In other words, more additives would displace some PAO, but the final cost was the same. These very high viscosity PAOs, such as 100 cSt, however, are very expensive. You can't get around that. If there are other oils that use this same technique, you will have to find out by trying them. No oil company will tell you this.
I do admire the clarity of your statement that what is good for one is not always good for another. This is very true for gear oils, and I would add manual transmission oils, too.
I'll start with the clues you gave - lower oil temperatures and less noise. So it behaves like a thin oil, yet is labeled a 15W? To formulate an oil, you start with unadditized base oils and mix two or three to give you the starting viscosity you want. (The additives and the viscosity index improver will change it later from this starting point.) With mineral oils you could not pick too low (thin) a base oil as the lower viscosity oil because it would be too volatile and evaporate in use. With a synthetic, however, this is not an issue and you can use a very thin oil. To get your target starting viscosity, you then mix a very very low viscosity oil with a very, very high viscosity oil. The result is that the mixture still begins at the starting viscosity you wanted, but needs less viscosity index improver additive to make it a multigrade. Not only does it act like a multigrade, but it shears down less (does not thin with use) because there are less (or no) viscosity index improver additives to breakdown. Usually it is the large molecular weight viscosity index improver additives that also cause the oil to run a little hotter because their size creates more friction. Lastly, why the oil is only a 15W is likely because it meets the 0W test for "flow" but fails on "thickness." This has a lot to do with how the test limits were chosen - for mineral oils. A synthetic will almost never turn solid, yet a mineral oil will. So the "thickness" test exists and does have a pass/fail limit. Frankly, if mineral oils didn't exist, this test could be dropped, and I'll bet the Motul would be a dandy 0W-50.
Anyway, that's my opinion. They mix a very high and very low base synthetic base oil, it has a very wide temperature range (wider than expected given the label) and with less viscosity index improver, it runs a little cooler. I believe the third base oil they use is an ester, which by itself has a greater than usual viscosity range and a stronger affinity to metals. Some marketers have advertised this better frictional characteristics because they believe there is always more oil on the surface.
Finally, if this is what Motul does, it will be more expensive. Last time I formulated, the additives and normal viscosity PAO base oils were about the same price. In other words, more additives would displace some PAO, but the final cost was the same. These very high viscosity PAOs, such as 100 cSt, however, are very expensive. You can't get around that. If there are other oils that use this same technique, you will have to find out by trying them. No oil company will tell you this.
Grant
Viper Owner
Tom,
Wouldn't a Motul race oil have more zinc and phosphorus anti-wear additives, which would protect the bearing surfaces and cylinder walls better during losses of oil pressure? Its my understanding that street oils have less of these additives in order to protect catalytic converters.
Wouldn't a Motul race oil have more zinc and phosphorus anti-wear additives, which would protect the bearing surfaces and cylinder walls better during losses of oil pressure? Its my understanding that street oils have less of these additives in order to protect catalytic converters.
Tom F&L GoR
Enthusiast
Yes it would have more ZDDP, but... ZDDP forms a protective layer in high pressure, high contact stress areas (the heat of this stress is what catalyzes the chemical reaction to form the layer) that sloughs off under boundary layer (borderline oil volume) conditions. This benefits areas like cam lobe tips and sliding lifters, piston rings, and rocker arms.
Engine bearings are fully hydrodynamic and are metallurgically soft. The odds of sufficiently high temperatures to form the additive protective layers is low, and the softness of the bearing shell is already the sacrificial component to be sloughed off in case of boundary lubrication.
Notice the operational difference in the above examples. The point between a cam lobe and lifter, piston rings at the top of the stroke, are non-pressurized oil flow (no reason the oil will want to stay between the metal parts) and are typically parts that engine builders worry about during a new engine break-in. Bearings are 100% fed by oil pressure, and the rotating shaft will pull any liquid oil under it to form a "wedge" between itself and the bearing. This wedge is nearly independent of the oil pressure; the pressure is needed to deliver the oil, not to force the two components apart.
If the bearing runs "dry", I don't think ZDDP will help much if any. The conditions don't seem right to have the ZDDP form a protective layer before the "dry" incident and the soft bearing will get rubbed and smeared anyway. To me, the thing that would save the bearing is if some oil remained even if low oil pressure was failing to deliver fresh oil. But admittedly, I haven't run tests to see what happens when engines run out of oil (duh.)
So I think in a high G turn when the engine loses oil pressure, the higher ZDDP oil will save the rings but still lose the bearings.
JKVIPER
Enthusiast
I guess my point is I am wasting a lot of money on Mobil 1 or should buy a hondaI have 398,000 on my honda and will hit 400,000 before year's end,and it doesn't burn or use any oil between oil changes! I use cheap regular bulk 10w30 oil!!!
What's your point???
Early93Viper
Enthusiast
Tom kind of oil do you use for your engine, differential, Transmission, powersteering, etc.?
99 R/T 10
Enthusiast
This is why I use Slick 50. I don't bother with Mobile 1 anymore. 10 quarts of Slick 50 and a Mopar filter and I am good for a million miles.......................................................
Tom F&L GoR
Enthusiast
1) Any 15W-40 mineral diesel oil (brand name; Chevron, Mobil, Shell) on sale at Walmart
2) Mopar recommended
3) GM manual transmission (synthetic) fluid recommended for the T56. Sorry, Chuck, but it was closer to me than you are.
4) GM cold climate fluid because Texaco formulated it and so I know it is partial synthetic (good for high temps) and has extra anti-wear additives. Neons used this for a while also.
Also
5) Valvoline Syntec brake fluid (or semi-synthetic; they changed the name)
6) Any DEX-COOL or non-silicate antifreeze
7) 99cent store windshield washer fluid
99 R/T 10 is a ******, isn't he?
CitySnake
Enthusiast
My brain hurts and Tom may be the most intelligent person I know (he's also remarkably humble and a hell of a nice guy).
That being posted, I STILL find this discussion to be much about little.
Is the following not true:
You're far better off changing your cheap oil more frequently than stretching your synthetic (expensive) oil an extra 1,000 miles. In short, if you changed your oil after every track day and/or after not more than 3,000 miles of typical street use, the type of oil you use becomes relatively insignificant. The previous assumes you use any oil of the proper viscosity(s).
That being posted, I STILL find this discussion to be much about little.
Is the following not true:
You're far better off changing your cheap oil more frequently than stretching your synthetic (expensive) oil an extra 1,000 miles. In short, if you changed your oil after every track day and/or after not more than 3,000 miles of typical street use, the type of oil you use becomes relatively insignificant. The previous assumes you use any oil of the proper viscosity(s).
Tom F&L GoR
Enthusiast
To use another (barely) analogy, I hope I am teaching folks to fish (and make an educated decision on engine oils) rather than letting them go to McDonalds for fish fillet every day (change your oil every 3K because since the dawn of time that's what Americans do.) And the thread began with the question of Valvoline's 4X wear protection claim, not longer drains.
There are things that should make you wonder if we only do things because of habit. For instance, OEMs in Europe recommend up to 15,000 mile oil drains in new cars, and hey, we're buying the same oils in the US (those with ACEA claims.) Shouldn't engineers and chemists at oil companies be working to make oils better - and since engines last far longer than before, they should make the oil last longer, too. (Did you get a new Viper because the old one was worn out?) At some point the oil formulation changes enough from that with which the engine was designed with, that the available oil might be unsuitable, no matter how short the drain. (Ask any engine builder if they trust current Mobil 1 for a break in oil... not!) The first Vipers were designed with high ZDDP API SG oils and current API SM oils have roughly half the ZDDP. Worried?
You change oil before the additive's capabilities are used up. Changing cheap oil more frequently is "safe" and better oil can go longer. All that is correct. But I still think you should pick up a hook, a worm, and a pole just in case McDonalds filet-o-fish turns out to be unhealthy.
Tom said: " Shouldn't engineers and chemists at oil companies be working to make oils better - and since engines last far longer than before, they should make the oil last longer, too. (Did you get a new Viper because the old one was worn out?) At some point the oil formulation changes enough from that with which the engine was designed with, that the available oil might be unsuitable, no matter how short the drain. "
That REALLY says it all !! Then on top of the "shifting oil sands", add in the extended oil change intervals recommended by Mercedes and others (often "free" for the first 3-4 years...which may save a bit of oil, possibly add a little extra life to the "cats", and certainly make some "political hay") and we have a very "green" approach with said extended oil change intervals as dictated/managed by the on board diagnostic system. Just test a sample of this oil at "change oil time" and you will see that it analyzes as TRASH (in my opinion)...depleted of additives, high in wear particles, low on TBN and high on TAN...and fit for nothing...least of all an expensive internal combustion engine!!! And this is "green" ?? In my opinion, the only thing "green" using that approach is the cash flow seen by the manufacturers as they build you a new car to replace the car that you own with the blown engine (likely just past warranty as predicted by extensive testing) that certainly did not last as long as the previous model engine lasted when YOU changed the oil frequently. Talk about Carbon Footprint!!! Rant over, goodnight.
That REALLY says it all !! Then on top of the "shifting oil sands", add in the extended oil change intervals recommended by Mercedes and others (often "free" for the first 3-4 years...which may save a bit of oil, possibly add a little extra life to the "cats", and certainly make some "political hay") and we have a very "green" approach with said extended oil change intervals as dictated/managed by the on board diagnostic system. Just test a sample of this oil at "change oil time" and you will see that it analyzes as TRASH (in my opinion)...depleted of additives, high in wear particles, low on TBN and high on TAN...and fit for nothing...least of all an expensive internal combustion engine!!! And this is "green" ?? In my opinion, the only thing "green" using that approach is the cash flow seen by the manufacturers as they build you a new car to replace the car that you own with the blown engine (likely just past warranty as predicted by extensive testing) that certainly did not last as long as the previous model engine lasted when YOU changed the oil frequently. Talk about Carbon Footprint!!! Rant over, goodnight.
