Shell rotella t6 syn, vs valvoline premium blue?

[2.7Lturbo]

auj its ironic how you bitch and moan about everyone just following the advice of the tech gurus, and then you just follow like a sheep the tsb with no independent testing...... of course the shell response is going to tell you to run a different more expensive oil.... its all about the money also notice that the shell rotella is dual rated as safe for autos (SM).... so your argument goes out the window!

[2.7Lturbo]

also love how all you can do to validate your argument is re post what manufactures say about the oils.... marketing hyperbole to get you to spend more money

[AUJ]

Originally Posted by 2.7Lturbo

auj its ironic how you bitch and moan about everyone just following the advice of the tech gurus, and then you just follow like a sheep the tsb with no independent testing......




of course the shell response is going to tell you to run a different more expensive oil.... its all about the money


also notice that the shell rotella is dual rated as safe for autos (SM).... so your argument goes out the window!

This is what I think. You opened a thread feigning to ask for oil advice while your secret motivation was to pimp rot-ella synthetic. When facts are presented, you take the facts as a personal attack against your oil of choice. Not being able to support your argument when confronted with facts from the manufacterer of your oil and the Technical Service Bulletin from the manufacturer of our vehicles, you shift gears and decide to kill the messenger with personal attacks.

Every person here getting flawed advice from self appointed forum tech gurus when contrary to engineering advice from the manufacturer's real life paid and manufacturer trained tech gurus as noted in the TSB, need to question the validity of the advice and weigh it against real tech gurus. I just provide the information for those grown ups here that want facts and not misinformed and potentially dangerous opinions. I am not intimidated by ignorance punching their fists. It makes me more suspicious of falsehoods and bad information. Your argument cannot possibly stay in the window when compared against the TSB. Don't hate the messenger, hate the auto manufacturer's TSB. LOL.

My advice is simply pick a synthetic of desired viscosity from the TSB list and try not to bruise the egos of the geniuses that think they can argue against the wisdom of the TSB successfully. You can fight with yourself now. The TSB trumps all tech guru hyperbole. TSB's are put out because the techs in the field constantly need guidance from VW/Audi engineering to keep product issues from getting worst and more expensive. No need to get fut-less; we are all C5 brothers.

[2.7Lturbo]

To pump shell rotella? Did you not read the post? I'm using valvoline premium blue........ Wow.....


Tsb is to be taken with a grain of salt on certain things.... Both oils I'm using would exceed vw requirements, so would amsoil, but they are not on the list approved by vw, are you saying amsoil is bad too?

[2.7Lturbo]

You also didn't address the fact rotella meets API sm ratings for gasoline engines......

[Just Me]

Let's get a bit practical here. I believe you noted that your climate is hot. And you have a turbo car. So the first thing i would look to is the flash point - you want it high. I'd also look at, or use as a proxy, the kinematic viscosity at 100 degC. Finally, for such high speed bearings, i would want a high HTHS. As i recall, neither publishes it. ACEA A3/B4 is a good proxy for such, but remember that it need only eek by a reading of 3.6 to qualify. So 3.6 and 5.5 look the same, both get the stamp.

So practically speaking, if your region really is so hot, i'd say "neither" - use a 10w40 or even 15w50, so long as it rarely gets below, say, 40 deg. Synth of course.

Overall, synthetics will always show better viscosity stability without the use of VIIs, or will require fewer or even no VIIs - which is important for turbo cars where the oil gets very hot. Let's avoid the raging debates over Grp 3 and 4 base stocks - its more complex than that and few of us have the data to be certain anyway. Even MSDS are insufficient.

T6s lack of ACEA A3/B4 does not concern me. Its designed for trucks, so its not a marketing point. I would also expect it has more anti-/wear additives. They are good for your motor, but can be bad for your cat. One practical question is "do i consume oil?" If yes, worry about the cat. If "no", how exactly will large amounts get there? They won't.

I saw the note from Shell below. I would pay no attention, o understand the circumstances within which it was written - their hands are tied by legal issues and marketing agreements, and Shell cannot be seen disregarding the standards of organizations they participate in, such as ACEA. And, on balance, for the great mass of consumers, they are right.

Similarly, you posted UOA results and said they are both good. OK, so the simplistic answer is it doesn't matter - but let's be more realistic. UOA is a better measure of your motor's condition and operation conditions than it is of one oil vs another. To get meaningful data on either really, you need a large sample, and a valid control with similar operating conditions. which we lack. Always.

As usual, my advice boils down to"be practical" and "don't worry so much". If you have any concern over your oil's long term performance, dont leave it so long term. And remember all oil is a trade off of flow vs shear; flow vs flash; wear vs damage cat; mileage vs wear; clean vs foam, etc. So if you know where your need is, get the one that errs on that side. I always go for a thicker oil, sacrificing some fuel economy for better wear protection. That's MY choice. An OEM cannot make that choice and still meet fuel economy standards. So no contradiction exists.

G

[2.7Lturbo]

thank you for the well thought out post... i will point out several things


ONE: both oils are exceed SM api ratings for automobiles with gasoline engines, that means catalytic damage is unlikly, this has to do with the fact that the oils pass CJ-4 which is the new desiel oil standard that has to be more friendly with the cats, positive for use gas guys but older diesel guys hate it as there are less anti-wear addatives.

TWO: the HTHS for the VPB is 4.2, the HTHS for the shell rotella t6 syn is 3.9, both are good numbers for our motors. as far as VIIs are concerned, diesels oils in general use less then gas counterparts, not to mention by going to an oil with a closer viscosity range will yeild less VIIs.


so in summation, unless you are using an oil compromised of only group IV and V base stocks, you can really call it a full syn. ill try the VPB for 3500 miles and let you know how it does. am i worried about coking with this oil because its not a syn? not at all. this oil has been run long and hard in many a turbocharged diesels with no problems. diesel engines are harder on the oil, AND most have a turbo. the dogma of only running a "syn" oil needs to be broken and the word syn is meaningless in this market of constant hyperbole.

bottom line, do reasearch, and run the oil best suited for your car. if unsure, try it! do a short interval and do a UOA. then switch back to your old oil on the same OCI and do another UOA and comopare.

[Just Me]

I've never seen them published for the T6. For the record, i frequently use it - when its cheap. And i go out of my way for extra anti-wear additives (primarily zddp, enemy #1 for the "save the cats" crowd) especially for my track car. Since neither burn a drop, i cannot see how much of anything will get to the cat.

G

[2.7Lturbo]

Dude I had to diiiiiiig on bigot to find the hths numbers for t6, but yeah zddp if the shiznit, also been doping some moly

[Just Me]

Actually the "evidence" you posted (a consumer reply from a shell spokesman) - aside from being tainted by the fact that they will NEVER officially go against the OEM's recommendations, contradicts your thesis. It says, and i quote from your own post:

"Because of their more robust additives, I would expect these products to outperform passenger car only oils (better control of wear and deposits)."

Outperform.

he goes on and adds the caveat that due to higher phosphorous it may not meet the specifications required (could hurt the cat) and has fewer friction modifies (might not need fuel economy).

Go back adn read it. That's what it says.

So, as usual the real driver is fuel economy and cat liability. not oil performance. But that's nto exactly news, is it?

G