Topic: Wester's Race Tune oil recommendation

[Excelsior]

Now that I have this race tune, what full synthetic oil would people recommend to cover that new redline and turbo properly?

I Know I am opening a can of worms here.  So lets try to leave the  argument out and just list your recommendation. 

[Critterman]

Trouble maker!
this is what you will be doing

So I am going to make one suggestion,  Use the full synthetic you feel the most comfortable with, as long as it meets the specs.

[DeepBlueGXP]

When I purchased Mobil 1 this last weekend, it said it was FULLY SYNTHETIC on the bottle.  I've had the Wester's tune for 1.5 yrs.  Never strayed from Mobil 1.  Critterman is right, follow the specs... 

[spicy3480]

Follow the specs...went back to Mobil 1 from using Barney Juice...no specific reason, but I didn't want the dealer to know I used other oil.

[lil goat]

Any good 100% synthetic is fine I am not sure Fully Syntetic is 100% synthetic base stock, as Group III mineral oil can be called synthetic leagally even 100% synthetic makes me wonder as the Group III oils still qualify.  Royal Purple is GM compliant as long as you do not use the XPR, and it doesn't stay purple for very long, all the oil they make is from 100% Group IV base stock, Amsoil, Red Line, Bel-Ray and others are as well, by the way this crap with calling Group III base mineral oil synthetic is only allowed in the US. In Europe if it says synthetic it has to be synthetic.

Hydrocracked/Hydroisomerized = API Group III base oils. Chevron, Shell, and other petrochemical companies developed processes involving catalytic conversion of feed stocks under pressure in the presence of hydrogen into high quality mineral lubricating oil. In 2005 production of GTL (Gas-to-liquid) Group III base stocks began. Even they are considered as synthetic product they are still mineral base stocks and counted as the mineral part of all semi-synthetic lubricants. Group III base stocks [with certain amount of mixture of PAOs and esters and Group V] are considered synthetic motor oil ONLY in the United States.[citation needed] Group III based lubricants are not allowed to be marketed as "synthetic" in any market outside of the USA.

[lil goat]

I did NOT write this article but I did find it very informative, it is a bit long but some very good info if you take the time to read it.


In April of 1999, the lubricants industry saw a legal ruling that has created
a loophole the size of Jupiter for "synthetic" motor oil manufacturers to hop
through.
That is the month that the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Council
of Better Business Bureaus ruled that Castrol could continue to label and
market its Syntec motor oil as "synthetic" even though the lube contained no
PAO or ester basestock whatsoever.
You see, in late 1997 or early 1998 Castrol made a significant change to its
Syntec formulation and didn't bother to tell anyone. Instead of using the
polyalphaolefin (PAO) basestock it had used for years, the company had moved
to now using a super highly refined petroleum oil basestock instead.
Mobil threw a fit and in 1999 filed a complaint against the Castrol company
claiming that the product had been degraded and that Castrol's superiority
claims were no longer substantiated. Mobil wanted Castrol to either move back
to using a PAO base or be required to relabel the oil so as to make it clear
that this was NOT a synthetic lube at all.
After all, it is significantly cheaper to manufacture an oil from a
hydrocracked petroleum basestock than from a PAO basestock. So, Castrol was
maintaining an unfair advantage in the market-place by pricing its Castrol
Syntec product similarly to other PAO based synthetic oils while spending
significantly less to manufacture it.
Moreover, Castrol used to get its PAO basestock from Mobil for its Syntec
formulation. Now it was getting hydrocracked petroleum oil basestocks from
Shell. Obviously, this was eating into Mobil's profits.
Mobil wanted it stopped ... immediately.
A LITTLE BACKGROUND
It's important to understand a few things in order to fully grasp the
importance of this complaint and the subsequent ruling by the NAD.
First, understand that motor oil basestocks are divided into five main groups
which, for the most part, establish a "quality grade" ranking structure of
sorts. For years, motor oil basestocks have been classified as either Group I,
Group II, Group III, Group IV or Group V. In fact, there is actually what are
considered Group II+ basestocks as well, which, in simplest terms are simply
the best of Group II basestocks.
This grouping classification system ranks basestocks by quality grade from
lowest to highest in terms of the viscosity index of the basestock. Group I
lubes will have low viscosity index (VI), while higher Groups will have
higher VIs.
Viscosity index is important because the higher the VI of an oil, the less
viscosity change there is with temperature changes. In other words, the less
the oil thickens up in cold temperatures, and the less if thins out in hot
temperatures. At both ends of the spectrum, the less change in viscosity, the
better protection the oil affords the engine it is put in.
Most automotive petroleum oils fall in the Group II and Group II+ categories.
These are oils with viscosity indexes below 120 (Group I lubes generally
being below 100). Group III petroleum basestocks with VI over 120 (this
requires significant purification of the base, which makes these basestocks
more expensive than Group I and Group II bases.
Group IV consists of PAO basestocks which will have VI above 140. These are
bases that were traditionally referred to as "synthetic". There are also
Group V basestocks which are ester bases. This type of base is less commonly
used, and has a wider range of performance characteristics than PAO's which
offer more consistent performance characteristics. Esters too have always
been considered "synthetic", the term referring, more or less, to the aspect
of man-made basestock creation.
PAOs and Ester basestocks are designed in a lab from a molecular level. Group
I - III petroleum basestocks are, of course, pumped from the ground and then
refined. They are not "created" by man, but only refined by man. Hence, they
had not been termed "synthetic" previous to the NAD ruling.
SO WHAT ... WHY DO I CARE ABOUT HYDROCRACKING?
Well, first and foremost, there are quality issues. You see, although PAOs,
which, prior to 2000 were the most common basestock used in "synthetic" oils,
have very consistent performance characteristics from one type to another,
super-purified VHVI (very high viscosity index) Group III petro basestocks do
not.
I should make it clear that, when I say hydrocracks, I'm actually referring
to a number of slightly different refining processes that can yield a VHVI
Group III petroleum basestock. These processes will combine two or more of
the following: hydrocracking, wax isomerization, solvent extraction,
hydroconversion, hydrotreating, and others.
These processes, often used in conjunction with each other, all yield
petroleum basestocks with high viscosity indexes, higher oxidation stability
and the ability to minimize deposit build-up due to oil contamination and
high temp burn-off.
But, understand that, in order to break into the Group III "elite" a
petroleum oil only has to post a VI score of 120 or better. In other words, a
Group II basestock could have a VI of 119, while, if it was just 1 point
higher, it would be considered a Group III base.
Meaning, of course, that it is theoretically possible for a Group III oil to
perform only marginally better than a Group II base oil. It is, however,
theoretically possible for a Group III base oil to perform nearly as well as
a PAO base, if it is refined to the point of having a VI score up near 140 or
so.
The key here is to understand that the majority of oil companies out there
are going to go with "adequate" and "reasonably priced" as their criteria for
establishing what basestock they are going to use. In other words, if their
intent is to create a "synthetic" lube using a Group III basestock, many
companies will choose a Group III basestock with a VI closer to 120 than 140.
Similarly, oil companies intending to manufacture a standard petroleum oil
are many times more likely to utilize a Group II base which may have a VI
closer to 100 than 120, which results in a lower quality oil.
So, even a low-grade Group III base which is sold as synthetic will still be
significantly better than most Group II petroleum lubes which are likely to
have VI's closer to 110 than 120.
Unfortunately, that same Group III "synthetic" will also be of significantly
lower quality than a Group IV PAO synthetic basestock which will have a VI of
140 at a minimum.
BUT "BRAND X" HYDROCRACK HAS A VI OF 150 ... WHAT ABOUT THAT?
Well, in the full version of my book, "The Motor Oil Bible", this issue is
explained in great detail, but I will provide the basics of how this works
here in this article.
There is a type of additive called a viscosity index improver or VI improver
which is designed to raise the viscosity index of an oil beyond that which is
already attained by the basestock used. These are long chain polymers which
are coiled up in cold temperatures and expand quickly in warm temperatures.
These additives prevent an oil from thinning out considerably in high
temperature operation by expanding to counteract the natural thinning of the
basestock. This can raise the VI number considerably.
However, there is a drawback to this. It creates a false sense of oil quality.
When a customer checks the technical specifications of two oils, VI is one of
the items often compared. Typically, the oil with the higher VI, all other
things being equal, will "get the nod" because it is assumed it is the oil of
higher quality.
But, unfortunately, it is entirely possible that the oil with the higher VI,
actually has a lower basestock VI, but uses more VI improver additive to
boost the VI score.
Because VI improvers are used up over time, it is entirely possible that an
oil with a very high VI out of the bottle could end up with a very low VI
over the course of a standard oil change interval. Thus, more thinning of the
oil would occur at high temperatures, and less effective protection would be
acheived.
Thus, if you had a crystal ball and could actully know the original VI of the
basestock of two oils, you would have a MUCH more effective means of
comparing the quality of the two lubes. But, alas, most of us just simply
can't afford the high price of a good crystal ball these days. So, we have to
settle for a "best guess".
SO HOW DO I KNOW WHAT I'M BUYING?
Good question. And a tough one to answer. The truth is, in many cases you
don't. So, the smart thing to do is to go with the oil that you DO know
what's in it. But, how is that possible? Well, in many cases, you might
actually have to call the company and specifically ask whether the oil is a
PAO base or not (if you're looking for a synthetic).
If you're not looking for synthetic, then, you simply want to read the
labeling and product literature carefully. Sometimes, embedded within all of
the verbage can be clues as to the nature of the basestock (Group I, II or
III), but not always.
One tell tale way of knowing whether the VI is "true" or "boosted" is to take
a look at the other specs. If the flash point seems extremely low for an oil
with such a good VI, then the VI is probably "boosted" with improvers. If the
oil has a really good VI, but a low HT/HS score, the same could be true. You
just have to watch carefully.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THIS "SYNTHETIC" ISSUE?
Well, that's an even tougher issue to answer because there was SOME ambiguity
even before the NAD ruling on hydrocracks. Now, it is significantly worse for
consumers. You're just about completely in the dark.
Here's what I mean:
Even before the NAD ruling, there were ways to produce a lower quality lube
and still price it as high as other higher quality lubes without the customer
being any the wiser. Labeling terminology was "sneaky".
Oils were labeled Synthetic, Full Synthetic, 100% Synthetic, or even
Synthetic Blend. What does all that mean? Well, NOW it means almost nothing,
but even before the 1999 ruling, it wasn't entirely clear.
You see, Synthetic and Full Synthetic are basically the same thing, but they
don't necessarily mean what you think. Full synthetic didn't (and doesn't)
actually mean that the entire base of the oil was "synthetic" (back then PAO
or ester). What it meant was that there was a "significant" portion that was
synthetic, and that portion could range quite a bit.
So, full synthetic told you that you had something better than a "blend"
which would typically be more like 10 to 20% synthetic, and something not
quite so good as a 100% synthetic lube, which would be just what it says (100%
PAO or ester base - before 1999).
So, prior to 1999, at least, if you could find an oil that said 100%
synthetic, you knew it was truly synthetic from the ground up. Anything else
was somewhat sketchy, but if you knew the terminology, at least you had a
fighting chance.
Unfortunately, most people didn't (and still don't). So, they'd purchase a
Full Synthetic assuming that meant the entire base was manufactured from
synthetic basestocks, but that wasn't necessarily true.
NOW, IT'S TEN TIMES WORSE
The truly sad thing is that the ambiguity is even worse now. Since
synthetic basestock can now refer to Group III oils, in addition to the
traditional Group IV and Group V bases, all the terminology is watered down
even more.
Now, it is possible for a 100% synthetic oil to be 100 percent Group III
basestock, 100% PAO, 100% ester or a combination of any of the three. Or, a
full synthetic could be part PAO, part Group III, part Group I or II, etc.
You just don't know what percentage of what is actually in there. Could be 0%
PAO, 50% Group III and 50% Group II. Could be 50% PAO and 50% Group III,
although, depending upon the company, they'd probably label that a 100%
synthetic lube.
And what about a blend? I think you get the picture at this point. You could
buy a blend, thinking that you're getting the best of both worlds and be
getting 90% Group II base and 10% low quality Group III base (that might as
well be labeled Group II because it's only got a VI of 122) - theoretically.
NOW THAT YOU'RE THOROUGHLY CONFUSED AND DEPRESSED ...
How important this is to you depends upon your perspective. To some, this
doesn't amount to a hill of beans, except that they may be paying a premium
price for a very non-premium oil. For others, this could be crucial. For
instance, if you've got a very high performance application, you really are
going to want PAO or ester base oils for best protection.
The only way to know for sure that's what you're getting is to contact the
company tech department in most cases, and start asking questions. Sometimes,
even this won't be much help. But, I can assure you, if a company is using a
100% "true" synthetic base (PAO and/or some type of ester), they'll tell you.
That is now a HUGE selling point, now that so many "synthetic" oils are
actually Group III oils.
So, if you ask, and the tech rep sidesteps the question and won't give you a
straight answer, you can pretty much bet the oil is NOT a full PAO/ester base.
Currently, the only oils out there that I'm about 99% certain are 100% "true"
synthetic base oils are AMSOIL, NEO, Redline, Klotz, Royal Purple, Bel-Ray and possibly a few others.
In most cases, the premium price oils ARE "true" synthetics. But, even then
you can't be completely sure because I'd just about be willing to bet my life
that there is at least one "premium" synthetic out there which is NOT a
true synthetic at all.
At any rate, that's my two cents. I hope this at least helps you understand
just a bit better what is happening in the industry right now that is
affecting you in a large way. Don't get stuck purchasing an inferior product
at a superior price because you don't know what's in your oil.

[Frank I]

Royal Purple is GM compliant as long as you do not use the XPR, and it doesn't stay purple for very long, all the oil they make is from 100% Group IV base stock,


Goat:

Why not the XPR?

Frank I

[lil goat]

The XPR which is what is in my car, is technically for race cars that do not have catalytic converters, there is something in the oil that when it goes through the EGR as vapor and is burned and goes out the exhaust can damage the cat. Mine is not a GM cat so I'm not really worried about it, I believe the advantages of the XPR are worth it, in both cost and the chance it will damage the cat. XPR is a super high heat oil with special friction reduction additives that in simple terms make the oil stick to the metal better, and not run off when the car sits so on start up there is less friction, the XPR 21 I run is specifically made for turbo's. BTF has broken down several of the K04 turbo's and seen scorching on the impeller bearings, this is caused by inadequate lubrication. It is usually from starting the  car and getting into the turbo before the system is fully lubricated, it can be caused by running the car really hard and shutting it off to quickly too. I have always run the best oil I can find in everything I own, 20 years ago that was Mobil 1 and I was paying $9 a quart, now petroleum prices are 4 or 5 times what the were then and it's less than $5 a quart at Wally world, seems odd to me somehow.

[Excelsior]

I currently have the stock cat and awaiting $$ for a hi-flo solo performance one.

[DirtyMike]

thanks lil goat for posting that... very informative!

no cat here so looking like im going RP xpr next oil change! my original ko4 was nasty cracked and heated, so my ko4+ has ceramic coating on the exhaust side and have put in a HKS turbo timer to help the cool down. i knew oil made a differance just not that much

[lil goat]

I am not certain but I have a guess as to what the stuff in XPR that may harm the Cat, years ago I played around with some lubricant technology and products that used copper, lead and silver in an elemental form in micro suspension in oil, these malable metals are very slick, think of a bullet going down a barrel. In there elemental form they are looking for a carbon atom, biggest component of an engine block is carbon (even aluminum blocks have iron sleeves), so it sticks to stuff and it doesn't run of as it is a molecular adhesion not a surface tension bond. If this stuff gets vaporised and goes thru a cat, I can imagine it would eventually cause and issue with the platinum in the cat. This is a complete guess on my part as to what the additive in XPR is, just my own personal theory based on past experiance.

[Excelsior]

Just letting everyone know my decision.  And a hard decision it was...

Mobil 1 Extended Performance Full Synthetic (GD-IV oil)

My second choice ended up Pennzoil Platinum oil.

Third was amsoil


The filterI chose was the NAPA Gold 7082 (made by WIX) and I will be finding a K&N Air filter soon enough.

[HAMMER DOWN]

Just letting everyone know my decision.  And a hard decision it was...

Mobil 1 Extended Performance Full Synthetic (GD-IV oil)

My second choice ended up Pennzoil Platinum oil.

Third was amsoil


The filterI chose was the NAPA Gold 7082 (made by WIX) and I will be finding a K&N Air filter soon enough.

I don't sell Amsoil. I been using it sense 2005 in my 05 Subaru Legacy GT 2.5L turbo w/ over 111k. G|F's 05 WRX 2.0L turbo w/ about 85k. avg OCI is 12k. My 07 Sol-GXP use Amsoil & Wix oil filter. Avg. OCI is 9.5k when the DIC say it time to change. IMO Amsoil is the best oil out there. Amsoil top oil is 0w-30 Signature Series.

http://www.amsoil.com/storefront/sso.aspx


When tested in the Four-Ball Wear test, (ASTM D-4127)

http://www.amsoil.com/graphs/sso_4ball_large.gif

Mobil 1 Extended Performance Full Synthetic (GD-IV oil) 5w-30  Placed last. 7 out of 7 top oils tested

My second choice ended up Pennzoil Platinum oil. 5w-30  Placed 2nd. 2 out of 7 top oils tested

Third was amsoil 0w-30  Placed 1st. 1 out of 7 top oils tested

Top oil filter is there Ea series.
 
http://www.amsoil.com/storefront/eao.aspx                 

Unfortunately Amsoil don't make a Ea drop in oil filter for The Sol GXP. But do have a Wix oil filter.

http://www.amsoil.com/storefront/wix.aspx

Just giving you more info. Not trying ti change your mind. It's your car, $$$$$ & you have to maintain it.


Mike
 

[Excelsior]

Thanks hammer, but I really have a hard time with Amsoil mostly because of their aggressive marketing.  It is really hard to find a decent comparison that is not paid for/hosted/shown to you by Amsoil themselves.  Its kind of like a snake oil vendor to me.  Even though it is a good oil.

There was hours and hours of research that I did, technical and non-technical and it was close between the three.  And I learned a whole lot, but the M! EP edged out the PP just a little bit for me.

Now if you can find those same results OUTSIDE of Amsoil links that are independant, go ahead and link em.

THIS change will be the oil I have already purchased.  But I am always looking for more info.

[HAMMER DOWN]

Has I said, I'm not trying to change your mind. This test was done by a independent lab.

http://www.amsoil.com/graphs/sso_4ball_large.gif

Some thing to think about. 1) I gave you real world use of Amsoil in all 3 turbo cars of mine. 2) Amsoil been make motor oil & claims of how good there oil is. For over 30yrs. If it was "snake oil", they would had to close the doors long time ago. 3) Other motor oil makers don't test against Amsoil, because they know they can't beat them. And if Amsoil wasn't truthful about there test result. The other motor oil makers would sued  Amsiol for every cent they have.

Mike

[Frank I]

The XPR which is what is in my car, is technically for race cars that do not have catalytic converters, there is something in the oil that when it goes through the EGR as vapor and is burned and goes out the exhaust can damage the cat. Mine is not a GM cat so I'm not really worried about it, I believe the advantages of the XPR are worth it, in both cost and the chance it will damage the cat. XPR is a super high heat oil with special friction reduction additives that in simple terms make the oil stick to the metal better, and not run off when the car sits so on start up there is less friction, the XPR 21 I run is specifically made for turbo's.

Thanks Goat. 

I was wondering why XPR was not covered by GM.  I just purchased a case of it on E-Bay for a very reasonable price.  Have not used it yet but will be doing so at my next change point.

Frank I

[lil goat]

I don't use Amsoil but I will say it is 100% Grp IV synthetic, as is Royal Purple and Red Line. I can not tell you what Mobil 1 is as Fully Synthetic legally does NOT mean it is from 100% Grp IV synthetic base, it can be up to 69% highly refined Grp III mineral oil and still be called Fully Synthetic, that is determined by the API American Petroleum Institute, there is a reason that Mobil 1 is cheaper, Castrol is no better and I swore by it for years. If you can find European Mobil 1 it has to be 100% from synthetic base by law if it says synthetic. I don't like Amsoils marketing tactics either but I like being mislead by Mobil 1 and Castrol even less, the API needs to fix the loophole!