|
|
|
|
|
#1
02-03-2009, 03:12 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Interesting Oil Literature
Not trying to start a typical oil thread, per se, but I've been reading up on the various "true" synthetics out there, and have noticed that a few of them are actually lacking modern API ratings. I'm sure a lot of you already know these things, but I thought I would share, anyway. Might help with future questions!
Anyway, here's a link to the website http://www.carbibles.com/engineoil_bible.html I guess what promted me to look into this is the ongoing debate between whether Mobil One is better than RedLine, etc. Or if Redline, Royal Purple, and the like are actually diesel rated. A quick look at RedLine's selection shows only one oil having diesel in the name (the 15w-40), however, all of their weights are indeed diesel certified. Royal Purple also has more than one weight that has a Cx rating. What I found interesting was that both RP and RedLine had, at least for the majority of their oils, only a CF rating, which was introduced in 1994. In the case of most of us, that is just fine. A question I have, though, is that even though the CF rating is rather old, is it actually better for our cars than the newer ratings, since it was designed to be used with higher sulfer fuels? Would this allow it to hold more soot? Or are those two completely independent variables? I would think that there might be some good reason for it, since both RP and RedLine are considered top shelf..is it possible that they just don't want to pay big $$ to get newer certifications?
__________________
Dan 2005 E320 CDI - 246k 1987 300SDL TD05-16g, Herlevi pump, Elbe manifold, 2.47 LSD - 213k Past: 1987 300D - 264k 
|
|
#2
02-03-2009, 05:11 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I looked at the site, a lot of good information.
That having been said, the guy is not a Chemist, nor apparently an Engineer per his own writing, and IMO it shows. There is also a good deal of information that isn't exactly correct, or just missing. The nice thing is that he does seem to be trying and impartial, to the point where I'm hoping to submit some useful information to the guy.
__________________
 Gone to the dark side - Jeff
|
|
#3
02-03-2009, 06:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual) Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL
|
|
#4
02-03-2009, 06:02 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Some of the updated specs have to do with emissions of the oil itself, as well as its lubricitive performance.
__________________
Gone to the dark side - Jeff
|
|
#5
02-03-2009, 06:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual) Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL
|
|
#6
02-04-2009, 02:52 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Ehhh?
"If you listen to the Oil companies...Everything is backwards compatible."
Yeah,Right  I've got this sneaky apprehension that (In General) the older your Diesel,the more picky you'd best be about Lubricants. The Majors are blending and producing oils for current spec cars and regulations. You can bet your fuel filters that if there's some conflict between specifications the older autos needs will loose out. The older Synthetics (Made to do combat with the EVIL "DieselbeforeLSD+ULSD" will "Carry" more crap in suspension AND the additive packages differ.
__________________
'84 300SD sold 124.128
|
|
#7
02-05-2009, 02:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
If in doubt you can always do an oil analysis. Also there are no "older synthetics" anymore. Everything on the market is new, even if it officially carries only a CF rating as that doesn't necessarily mean that's all the oil meets.
__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual) Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
