Valvoline SynPower officially kicks Mobil 1s A$$

**lonewolf37** · 12-25-2008, 09:00 PM

Attachment 17953
This is my latest UOA from my 2007 Trailblazer SS. I bought this truck in May as a demonstrator with 7,500M on it. I insisted on an oil change and a UOA. The first two are Mobil 1 5/30. The next change was to PP 10/30. The current UOA is to Valvoline Synpower 10/30. The best results have come with Synpower.
This truck is stock, and is used as a grocery getter. I romp on it occasionally, but not often.
Please note that I did not run TBNs on these samples. A certain renowned tribologist tells me that Synpower is not quite as stout as PP in that department. Nonetheless, Synpower has produced the best results on this vehicle to date.
I am not saying this validates Valvolines claims, just providing a vehicle for input.

**Sarge** · 12-26-2008, 02:12 AM

From that UOA PP did better. I'm confused?
Mobil1 has high Iron levels and with no flush in between PP dropped your iron like a rock but you can be assured there was residual iron from the Mobil1. Copper was also lower with PP. I'm not defending either PP or Valvoline....just reading a UOA with knowledge of Mobil1....What do you see or what am I missing?

**Sarge** · 12-26-2008, 06:08 AM

Originally Posted by AB'sLs1

why the concern in zinc??i heard one of my friends talking to me the other day who uses and oil with a high zinc content for his 64 fairlane with a soild lifter cam ...so whats the story with zinc just out of curiosity??

Over the years there has been an overabundance of engine oil myths. Here are some facts you may want to pass along to customers to help debunk the fiction behind these myths.

The Pennsylvania Crude Myth -- This myth is based on a misapplication of truth. In 1859, the first commercially successful oil well was drilled in Titusville, Pennsylvania.
A myth got started before World War II claiming that the only good oils were those made from pure Pennsylvania crude oil. At the time, only minimal refining was used to make engine oil from crude oil. Under these refining conditions, Pennsylvania crude oil made better engine oil than Texas crude or California crude. Today, with modern refining methods, almost any crude can be made into good engine oil.

Other engine oil myths are based on the notion that the new and the unfamiliar are somehow "bad."

The Detergent Oil Myth -- The next myth to appear is that modern detergent engine oils are bad for older engines. This one got started after World War II, when the government no longer needed all of the available detergent oil for the war effort, and detergent oil hit the market as “heavy-duty” oil.

Many pre-war cars had been driven way past their normal life, their engines were full of sludge and deposits, and the piston rings were completely worn out. Massive piston deposits were the only thing standing between merely high oil consumption and horrendous oil consumption. After a thorough purge by the new detergent oil, increased oil consumption was a possible consequence.
If detergent oils had been available to the public during the war, preventing the massive deposit buildup from occurring in the first place, this myth never would have started. Amazingly, there are still a few people today, 60 years later, who believe that they need to use non-detergent oil in their older cars. Apparently, it takes many years for an oil myth to die.

The Synthetic Oil Myth -- Then there is the myth that new engine break-in will not occur with synthetic oils. This one was apparently started by an aircraft engine manufacturer who put out a bulletin that said so. The fact is that Mobil 1 synthetic oil has been the factory-fill for many thousands of engines. Clearly, they have broken in quite well, and that should put this one to rest.

The Starburst Oil Myth -- The latest myth promoted by the antique and collector car press says that new Starburst/ API SM engine oils (called Starburst for the shape of the symbol on the container) are bad for older engines because the amount of anti-wear additive in them has been reduced. The anti-wear additive being discussed is zinc dithiophosphate (ZDP).

Before debunking this myth, we need to look at the history of ZDP usage. For over 60 years, ZDP has been used as an additive in engine oils to provide wear protection and oxidation stability.

ZDP was first added to engine oil to control copper/lead bearing corrosion. Oils with a phosphorus level in the 0.03% range passed a corrosion test introduced in 1942.

In the mid-1950s, when the use of high-lift camshafts increased the potential for scuffing and wear, the phosphorus level contributed by ZDP was increased to the 0.08% range.

In addition, the industry developed a battery of oil tests (called sequences), two of which were valve-train scuffing and wear tests.

A higher level of ZDP was good for flat-tappet valve-train scuffing and wear, but it turned out that more was not better. Although break-in scuffing was reduced by using more phosphorus, longer-term wear increased when phosphorus rose above 0.14%. And, at about 0.20% phosphorus, the ZDP started attacking the grain boundaries in the iron, resulting in camshaft spalling.

By the 1970s, increased antioxidancy was needed to protect the oil in high-load engines, which otherwise could thicken to a point where the engine could no longer pump it. Because ZDP was an inexpensive and effective antioxidant, it was used to place the phosphorus level in the 0.10% range.

However, phosphorus is a poison for exhaust catalysts. So, ZDP levels have been reduced over the last 10-15 years. It's now down to a maximum of 0.08% for Starburst oils. This was supported by the introduction of modern ashless antioxidants that contain no phosphorus.

Enough history. Let's get back to the myth that Starburst oils are no good for older engines. The argument put forth is that while these oils work perfectly well in modern, gasoline engines equipped with roller camshafts, they will cause catastrophic wear in older engines equipped with flat-tappet camshafts.

The facts say otherwise.

Backward compatability was of great importance when the Starburst oil standards were developed by a group of experts from the OEMs, oil companies, and oil additive companies. In addition, multiple oil and additive companies ran no-harm tests on older engines with the new oils; and no problems were uncovered.

The new Starburst specification contains two valve-train wear tests. All Starburst oil formulations must pass these two tests.

- Sequence IVA tests for camshaft scuffing and wear using a single overhead camshaft engine with slider finger (not roller) followers.

- Sequence IIIG evaluates cam and lifter wear using a V6 engine with a flat-tappet system, similar to those used in the 1980s.

Those who hold onto the myth are ignoring the fact that the new Starburst oils contain about the same percentage of ZDP as the oils that solved the camshaft scuffing and wear issues back in the 1950s. (True, they do contain less ZDP than the oils that solved the oil thickening issues in the 1960s, but that's because they now contain high levels of ashless antioxidants not commercially available in the 1960s.)
Despite the pains taken in developing special flat-tappet camshaft wear tests that these new oils must pass and the fact that the ZDP level of these new oils is comparable to the level found necessary to protect flat-tappet camshafts in the past, there will still be those who want to believe the myth that new oils will wear out older engines.
Like other myths before it, history teaches us that it will probably take 60 or 70 years for this one to die also.

Special thanks to GM's Techlink
- Thanks to Bob Olree – GM Powertrain Fuels and Lubricants Group

**GOR1LA** · 12-26-2008, 07:26 AM

so is synpower better then mobil one? or is mobil one still one of the best?

**lonewolf37** · 12-26-2008, 08:26 AM

Thanks Sarge! I am going to keep experimenting with oils in my truck and my Camaro. I am now trying Amsoil signature series in the Camaro. Should I go two changes before a Dyson Analysis? I am also considering trying Schaefers 9000, as I see you are using it.

**Sarge** · 12-26-2008, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by GOR1LA

so is synpower better then mobil one? or is mobil one still one of the best?

I have them as equals frankly. I see Valvoline at $19 bucks per 5 quart jug now at ChinaMart and Mobil1 is like $26.....with all things else being equal it wouldn't be a very tough decision for me. I still see PP 10-30 as being the best overall off the shelf....out of the GRPIII's...Chevron Supreme and Pennzoil Yellow Bottle being the top conventionals.....and Amsoil/RedLine and Shaffer's being the top dogs overall.....but formulations change...and so will our recommendations when that time comes...

**Sarge** · 12-26-2008, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by lonewolf37

Thanks Sarge! I am going to keep experimenting with oils in my truck and my Camaro. I am now trying Amsoil signature series in the Camaro. Should I go two changes before a Dyson Analysis? I am also considering trying Schaefers 9000, as I see you are using it.

Yes. Say Hi to Terry for me....Shaeffers works very well for me....

**180ls1** · 12-26-2008, 11:19 AM

Originally Posted by Sarge

Yes. Say Hi to Terry for me....Shaeffers works very well for me....

do you believe or somewhat believe their claims? They are local to me and i always like helping out a small guy that makes a good product when i get a chance.

**BADBLUE02** · 12-26-2008, 12:21 PM

Originally Posted by Sarge

On your higher copper UOA's I am curious what your fuel dilution/silicon was.....usually higher copper is a direct sign of poor filtration not oil...

I'll have to look. The papers are in my desk at the office. I was thinking it was a beraring. How would the fuel dilution and silicon play a part in the wear numbers.

**BADBLUE02** · 12-26-2008, 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by Firebirdjones

Yes all the diesel oil is this way for the time being. I have and still use Rotella in one car which has 1400 ppm. My father uses it in his 69 goat as well, even after the new engine was installed with a roller camshaft. Many other muscle car owners I know have switched to it with good results.

I've read about other people using the diesel oil with good results. I have a P1SC on my car, and figured with the extra abuse a little higher viscosity couldn't hurt.

**Sarge** · 12-26-2008, 01:54 PM

[quote=180ls1;1761245]do you believe or somewhat believe their claims? They are local to me and i always like helping out a small guy that makes a good product when i get a chance.

I usually go by personal UOA's and those of other engines like mine......test and marketing stuff are very difficult usually to get everybody on a level playing field.....

**Sarge** · 12-26-2008, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by BADBLUE02

I'll have to look. The papers are in my desk at the office. I was thinking it was a beraring. How would the fuel dilution and silicon play a part in the wear numbers.

Fuel breaks the oil down to worthless liquid and silicon is like grit sandpaper.
We see really high wear numbers on folks running K&N air filters.....

**Too Fast** · 12-26-2008, 02:20 PM

Alright, I am officially getting rid of my free K&N filter and putting in a new AC Delco, or other high grade air filter. I did my own test at the drag strip a while back, no air filter, new AC Delco, and the clean K&N.

There was no difference in 1/4 or ET on 3 runs each.

**BADBLUE02** · 12-26-2008, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by Sarge

Fuel breaks the oil down to worthless liquid and silicon is like grit sandpaper.
We see really high wear numbers on folks running K&N air filters.....

That's interesting. I won't be back in the office till Monday. I'll post a few of the charts then. I know the they didn't come back abnormal, but I don't remember the exact number.
Are you comparing the K&N to a regular paper filter? Does the K&N allow more dust particles into the engine?

**Sarge** · 12-26-2008, 03:41 PM

Paper filter owns a KN. Synthetic Fiber Dry filter ( AEM/Amsoil) owns a paper filter.
Different oils react/withstand fuel dilution better than others.....

**Sarge** · 12-26-2008, 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by Too Fast

Alright, I am officially getting rid of my free K&N filter and putting in a new AC Delco, or other high grade air filter. I did my own test at the drag strip a while back, no air filter, new AC Delco, and the clean K&N.

There was no difference in 1/4 or ET on 3 runs each.

Yes there was

Dirt in your motor! You want filtration@ maximum while not restricting flow......KN flows like a son of a gun....but lord they do not filter worth a damn.....

**BADBLUE02** · 12-26-2008, 04:49 PM

Originally Posted by Sarge

Paper filter owns a KN. Synthetic Fiber Dry filter ( AEM/Amsoil) owns a paper filter.
Different oils react/withstand fuel dilution better than others.....

Hmmm.....I've been using K&N since I bought my first LT1. Do you know of any comparisons between the three I can look at online? I'd be interested to see what the results were. The blower uses a cone style filter. I'm going to look to see if Amsoil has a replacement.

**Z ROADSTER** · 12-26-2008, 07:21 PM

SARGE , your've let me down ! I thought you swore by GC synthetic 0w30 all these years . What happened ? Also you used to hail K&N air and oil filters .Whats up with that ? And if not K&N then which one Oh oil Guru ?

**Sarge** · 12-27-2008, 01:47 AM

Originally Posted by Z ROADSTER

SARGE , your've let me down ! I thought you swore by GC synthetic 0w30 all these years . What happened ? Also you used to hail K&N air and oil filters .Whats up with that ? And if not K&N then which one Oh oil Guru ?

LOL....You need to stay up friend! As I say constantly.....oil manufacturers will change formulations/API will require new ratings and the manufacturers change to meet those requirements....it is a constant state of change...I stress this quite a lot friend.....we have to stay on top of these changes.....
I will say it for the millionth time.....
What is king of the hill today may be the doormat tomorrow. This is why we constantly are doing UOA's....constantly doing VOA's and constantly watching the trends.......because it is a constant state of change.....

**Sarge** · 12-27-2008, 01:59 AM

Originally Posted by BADBLUE02

Hmmm.....I've been using K&N since I bought my first LT1. Do you know of any comparisons between the three I can look at online? I'd be interested to see what the results were. The blower uses a cone style filter. I'm going to look to see if Amsoil has a replacement.

I use an AEM DryFlow with a Amsoil Pre filter myself.....cone type KN replacement if you will.........but you had ask earlier about filtration and it's effect on wear metals.....here is a little test we did....from right back to left.....we ran a AEM DryFlow/KN/Amsoil....see the wear metals yourself....now see the correlation?

Just for referance this is my air intake....

Here is some starter reading for you...but I encourage anybody to search/read/challenge any and all testing....but I find these informative in a general sense.....obviously I do my own testing ( as above reflects) and your own testing will carry more weight.....but you can start here....
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/airfilter/airtest3.htm
http://www.roadkill.com/~davet/moto/air.filters.html

http://www.performancemotoroil.com/A...r_Filters.html