Best oil to run.

[TheJDMan]

This subject is full of opinions and just plain misinformation. The only way to know what your oil condition is, is to have it analysed. Both John Deere and Cat dealers sell oil testing kits for about $12.

[Steve1968LS2]

I personally run Torco.. been very happy with it. :shrug:

[Payton King]

subject at SEMA. Stated that most oil is different from 3 to 5 years ago because of the EPA regulations. Stated the best oil they have found and run in the circle track NASCAR stuff that runs LS motors is the Redline 40 wt racing oil. The actual viscosity is 15w-40 and has the highest zinc content.

[mosconiac]

The definitive answer is Amsoil based on the research of a tribologist I became aware of through various forums.

FWIW, he LOATHED Royal Purple and recommended that no one use it due to the use of certain additives. I'll post that info up next.

Here is a copy of his research summary:

These are the most comprehensive and recent ones I could find. They date to March 2003 and May 2003. I will post the numbers, add a comment or two, and answer any questions you may care to pose. These tests were commisioned by Amsoil, but since they use standardized ASTM protocols, they could easily be verified, and any deception challenged. Based on my experiences with the products from all these companies, and the results of similar but less comprehensive tests posted elsewhere, these do not look doctored or suspect. But as I did not oversee them, I cannot and will not be accountable for any discrepancies, real or imagined. This was a lot of work to type, and I strived to get them right.
BTW, RR stands for "Road Rage", my handle on some other car forums.

1. All the oils were 10w30 viscosity
2. The oils tested were:
Amsoil (syn)
Castrol GTX Drive Hard (mineral)
Valvoline Synpower (syn)
Mobil Drive Clean (min) - isn't this the rebadged Honda oil?
Pennzoil Purebase (min)
Quaker State (Syn)
Quaker State Peak Perf (min)
Castrol Syntec (syn)
Valvoline (min)
Pennzoil Synthetic (syn)
Mobil1 SuperSyn (syn)

The following ASTM tests were run:
Thin-film Oxygen Uptake ( D-4742)
High Temp/High Shear ( D-4683)
NOACK Volatility ( D-5900)
Pout Point (D-97)
Total Base Number (D-2896)
Cold Cranking Simulator D-5293)
4-Ball Wear (D-4172)
************************************************** *******
Test 1: Thin Film Oxygen Uptake:
Measures the oxidation stability of an oil.
The induction time (break point) in minutes is measured. The test uses standard amounts of fuel dilution, soluble metals, and water to offer a real-world applicability.

Results for this test(all units in minutes):
Amsoil: >500 (no break)
Mobil1: 397
Pennzoil Purebase: 242
Castrol Syntec: 221
Valvoline: 219
Vavoline SynPower: 211
Mobil Drive Clean: 209
Quaker State Peak Performance: 192
Pennzoil Synthetic: 159
Quaker State Synthetic: 159
Castrol GTX Drive Hard: 132

Test 2: High Temperature/High Shear (HT/HS)
Measures a lube's performance under severe heat and shear (mechanical stress) as would be found in the journal bearings under heavy load. The units displayed are viscosity based, using the centipose unit (cP). The minimum spec for a 30w is 2.9 cP.

Results for this test (all units in cP):
Amsoil: 3.51
Quaker State Peak Performance: 3.37
Castrol GTX Drive Hard: 3.35
Vavoline SynPower: 3.30
Mobil1: 3.30
Valvoline: 3.30
Mobil Drive Clean: 3.28
Pennzoil Purebase: 3.16
Quaker State Synthetic: 3.15
Pennzoil Synthetic: 3.14
Castrol Syntec: 3.13

Test 3: NOACK Volatility.
Measures the evaporative loss of lubricants in high temperature conditions. The higher the number, the thicker the lubricant will become. API SL and GF-3 specs allow for a 15% evaporation limit. In this test, obviously, lower is better. Syns almost always have an advantage due to their monomolecularity.

Results for this test (% weight loss):
Amsoil: 4.86
Vavoline SynPower: 7.03
Castrol Syntec: 7.77
Quaker State Synthetic: 7.80
Pennzoil Synthetic: 8.15
Mobil1: 8.92
Castrol GTX Drive Hard: 8.93
Quaker State Peak Performance: 10.63
Mobil Drive Clean: 10.83
Pennzoil Purebase: 10.93
Valvoline: 12.18

Test 4: Pour Point
This test reveals the lowest temperature at which a lubricant will flow when cooled under test conditions. The lower, the better the product will perform in getting from the oil pan to the upper oil galleys, and in providing oil pressure quickly. Synoils generally are the best, because they are free of wax crystals, but today's mineral oils are better refined to remove wax impurities, and use advanced pour point depressant additives to help offset the synoils' intrinsically better properties.

Results for this test (all units in degrees Centigrade):
Amsoil: -48
Mobil1: -46
Vavoline SynPower: -46
Castrol Syntec: -43
Pennzoil Synthetic: -40
Quaker State Synthetic: -40
Pennzoil Purebase: -37
Valvoline: -37
Mobil Drive Clean: -37
Castrol GTX Drive Hard: -37
Quaker State Peak Performance: -34

Test 5: Total Base Number (TBN)
TBN displays the lubricant's reserve alkalinity, and is, of course, the opposite of TAN (total acid number). A high TBN will help resist the formation of acids from sulfur and other sources. It is also a good indicator of reserve resistance to oxidation. The higher the number, the superior ability to suspend contaminants and the greater the ability to provide long-drain intervals
Results for this test (all units in mg KOH/g):
Amsoil: 12.34
Vavoline SynPower: 11.38
Castrol Syntec: 10.39
Pennzoil Synthetic: 9.73
Mobil1: 8.57
Valvoline: 7.88
Quaker State Synthetic: 7.82
Castrol GTX Drive Hard: 7.74
Mobil Drive Clean: 7.71
Quaker State Peak Performance: 7.55
Pennzoil Purebase: 7.40

RR's comments: I was very impressed with all the oils, as the mineral oils have significantly improved, consistent with previous comments about how mineral oils are closing in, and that the GF-3 spec has resulted in very good performing products. Mobil1's showing is the best i have seen for that product, which usually was in the 5-6 range previously. It certainly also supports my previous comments that the 3K oil change "necessity" is out of place with current technology. Like an enema for a dead man, while it may not help to do a 3K change, it wouldn't hurt I guess.

Test 6: Cold Crank Sumulator
This one determines the apparent viscosity of the oils at low temperatures and high shear rates, simulating the dreaded cold start. It has direct applicability to engine cranking, the lower the number the better in terms of stress on the battery, starter, etc. A 10w is tested at -25degF and must show a vis <7000 cP to pass.

Results for this test (all units cP at -25degC):
Pennzoil Synthetic: 3538
Amsoil: 3590
Mobil1: 3967
Quaker State Synthetic: 4142
Vavoline SynPower: 4541
Quaker State Peak Performance: 4620
Castrol Syntec: 4783
Castrol GTX Drive Hard: 5804
Pennzoil Purebase: 5936
Mobil Drive Clean: 6448
Valvoline: 6458

RR Comments: If you live and drive your car in very cold climates, the advantage of the synoils is obvious. Keep in mind that the NOACK performance figures here as well, as this tests hows the performance of fresh oil - after a few thousand miles, the oils with higher volatility will likely have thickened, unless there has been high dilution from fuel, such as can occur if excessive startup idling warmups are employed.


Test 7: Four Ball Wear
This one is a good indicator of the wear protection of a lubricant, although in the real-world it is should be factored in with the TBN of the oil. Three metal balls are clamped together, and a rotating 4th one is pressed against them in sliding contact. A scar is produced, since at some point the film strength (resistance to being squeezed out) of the oil will be exceeded. The scar is then measured, and the smaller the average wear scar, the better. This test is affected by both the base stock of the oil, and its additive package.

Results for this test (all units in inches):
Amsoil: 0.40
Castrol Syntec: 0.45
Vavoline SynPower: 0.55
Quaker State Synthetic: 0.55
Mobil Drive Clean: 0.55
Pennzoil Synthetic: 0.60
Mobil1: 0.60
Valvoline: 0.60
Castrol GTX Drive Hard: 0.60
Quaker State Peak Performance: 0.60
Pennzoil Purebase: 0.65


RR Comments: Amsoil and Castrol Syntec are the clear frontrunners, indicating excellent chemistry and use of anti-wear additives. Once again, the high performance of the mineral oils against the 2nd tier synoils is notable, although one cannot dismiss the superiroity of the synoils across the board.

************************************************** ************

Final comments:
I think that except for one of the lubes, there was a wide discrepancy of performance for the others - one might be good here, not so good there. As in life, consistency of performance is what sets apart the great from the good.
As Voltaire said, "The best is the enemy of the good". Perfectly good performance can be found in any of these products, and a thinking owner would factor his/her driving styles, operating conditions (environmental), maintenance schedule (intervals between changes), cost constraints, buy vs lease, and expected length of ownership into making a choice.

Now, what about the other top synoils? Well, they were not tested here, but certainly the industry giants were. Based on tests I have run or seen from sources I trust in the industry, Red Line, NEO, Motul, and others would likely score in the top quartile of these tests. The tests anmd UOA's I have seen for Royal Purple have never shown it to be other than mid-tier, competitive with the synoil or GIII mineral oils from the major companies.

[mosconiac]

I mentioned this person is a "tribologist" in the last post. That's an engineering title for "lubrications engineer". The man's life work is related to lubricants, so I trust his opinion. "RP" is Royal Purple in this context.

I have been asked about RP many times - I have repeatedly said "No Comment" because I could obtain almost no info from the company. I also commented that in response to some Forum members' saying that this or that magazine did a test and got more rwhp with Royal Purple that I knew there were methods to add a large amount of certain additives to get that result, but that often this meant that there would be a drop in lubricant performance somewhere else. I also commented that some of the RP oils were not synthetic, but mineral oils fortified with some "miracle additive" that RP claimed to have developed.

Please read the following I received today from the Technical Services folks at Amsoil; I cannot certify these comments other than they are in agreement with my general understanding of molybdenum additives in motor oils, and my experience that Amsoil's testing is in agreement with general industry testing standards. They do not consider RP anything other than a niche player, as do I. You decide:


"As you may know, RP is big in racing circles. The chemistry they use is something we choose not to use. One of our big selling points is extended drain intervals. Some additive chemicals can cause adverse conditions when used for long periods.



Royal Purple uses a different chemistry than most. They are one of only a handful of marketers using Moly in their oil. Moly is a solid, specifically banned by Cummins, due to excessive valve train wear.



Moly (Molybdenum Disulfide) is a processed mineral that is similar in appearance to graphite. Moly has good lubricating properties when used either by itself (in dry power form or as an additive to oil or other lubricants). Particles of the Moly can come out of suspension and agglomerate. This can actually clog oil filters or oil lines and the rest normally settles in the bottom of the oil pan. This seems to be more likely when using extended drain intervals. The only test we ran on RP involved their 20W50 Racing oil versus our AMSOIL Series 2000 Synthetic 20W50 Racing Oil (TRO). We ran two 4 ball wear tests with different parameters, a spectrographic baseline, FTIR scan and volatility tests. The Royal Purple showed a significantly high volatility rate with a 12.51% boil off rate. This compares to TRO with a 4.47% volatility rating. Wear scars were also smaller with the TRO. For example the TRO left a .41mm scar and the RP oil left a .66mm scar. There was also a surprising difference in the viscosity index. The RP has a VI of 129 versus 155 for the TRO. The higher the VI, the better the viscosity stays in place at high temperatures.

Royal Purple products are more popular in some areas than others, but generally they own a very small segment of the lubricant market. Advertising against small companies actually gives them advertising in the process and gives little in return. Therefore, we target our advertising against the industry giants that are household names.

We hope this is helpful."

[Sieg]

Good chemistry info

[LS1-IROC]

Originally Posted by Sieg

When someone says they wouldn't use it, for the benefit of others, stating "why" would help.

Engineering analysis is the only sure way to separate marketing from chemistry.

My experience with RP was very poor. I tore open an crate engine that had 20K miles on it and RP was used it's entire life. The engine was absolutely filthy inside. There was black goo all over the lifter valley. I believe it was the moly.

[Sieg]

Originally Posted by LS1-IROC

My experience with RP was very poor. I tore open an crate engine that had 20K miles on it and RP was used it's entire life. The engine was absolutely filthy inside. There was black goo all over the lifter valley. I believe it was the moly.

Thanks that definitely supports the engineering statement.

[Roadrage David]

I see they left the best oil out Brad Penn oil http://www.penngrade1.com/

[Steve Chryssos]

RP is not real synthetic. It's a blend as are a lot of "syn-something" oils. Now Red Line Oil -- is real synthetic oil engineered with one purpose in mind: High Performance engines. Amsoil is another true synthetic as is Mobil 1

The people at Red Line Oil are big supporters of pro-touring including as the oil of choice on Stielow's cars over the years.

I've taken Red Line Oil's advice and moved towards lighter viscosity oils, knowing that they bring the engine protection, so I might as well free up some power. The added protection has probably saved us an engine or two.