Printable View
That's tops. Reference to a 2009 thread on Pump Duese Engines that VW no longer sell, referring to a specific problem with the cams that at a cursory glance appears to be unavoidable even if the correct VW oil was used. Sounds more like a materials engineering issue than a lubrication issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Transporter
ThanksQuote:
Originally Posted by Transporter
Interesting information.
Ok, lets do it again then, start experimenting with the current engines and maybe we can read all about it in 5 years time.Quote:
Originally Posted by brad
Now, put the tempting to prove who is wrong and who is right aside and also consider the facts that there are many PD engines made before 2006 which didn't fail and are still running.
I saw a few T5s with 5cyl. PD engine where the owner thought that he knew better, after all he followed the forums where many open minded people posted and he used Penrite HPRDiesel 5W40 right from the first oil change and his cam failed at 85,000km.
transporter
We both know the safe answer to anyone asking "what oil should I use" is "refer VW recomndation" but that's not the question that was being asked.
You are right, I'm sure there are many PD engines that were made before 2006 that are still running and a percentage of them probably haven't used the recomended VW oil.
Sure, you know 1 guy who's engine croaked but what about all the other guys who's engines didn't croak? Was the cam failure due to a failure in the lubricant or due to a materials engineering failure in the cam itself? How was this failure diagnosis verified?
If the VW recomended lubricant is the only choice for VW engines then why does it appear that so many members of this forum & other forums are experiencing engine failures & excessive oil consumption when they have run their engines in IAW the manufacturers specification?
If the VW recomendations are so good then why is it that you personally choose to ignore VWs recomended change intervals? Surely you can't just pick & choose the technical information that suits your stance but ignore the other information that you disagree with?
It would be an outright mistruth to state or believe that (for instance) VW504.00/507.00 is the pinnacle of lubrication chemistry & that no alternatives exist.
Anyway, I think you've proved what I was saying earlier, so thanks for that.
I've never agreed with the VW recommended oil change intervals and was always saying that the engine lasts longer in a better condition when the engine oil is changed more frequently. Just look how many transmissions fail these days.
I would have to have rocks in my head to assume that VW507.00 is the best universal engine oil out there. But it's the safest choice for your VAG engine especially for the TDI.
I was Amsoil oils distributor in Adelaide for a few years, it is one of the best synthetic oils, but would I use it in my MY05 T5 PD engine? Absolutely not, the VW says 506.01 only and that's what goes in every 6 months.
As for the PD engine failure, I think that the percentage that failed would equal to the percentage those that used not approved oils.
Wow, old thread with a lot of new posts. Probably best if I split up my replies by user (in order of appearance).
Vehicle manufacturers (OEMs) continue to push the envelope in order to extract more performance and efficiency simultaneously. Naturally, engine lubricants do not escape the scrutiny of engineers.Quote:
Originally Posted by AnDyStYLe
To this end, OEMs have released their own oil specifications (e.g. BMW LL-04, GM dexos 2, MB 229.51, VW 504.00/507.00, etc) which complement industry specifications (e.g. ACEA C3, API SN, ILSAC GF-5, JASO DL-1, etc). This gives OEMs finer and tighter control over the level of lubricant performance.
Most OEM oil specifications are open to the lubricant industry, so any lubricant manufacturer can formulate their own product and submit it to the OEM for certification and approval. This system allows OEMs to guarantee a certain level of performance.
Thus, the onus of selecting the correct lubricant is transferred from the consumer to the vehicle manufacturer. It means that OEMs should have no valid reason to deny a lubricant-related warranty claim (the consumer need not concern themselves with how the OEM recovers its costs).
It also means selecting the correct product is greatly simplified, because an OEM oil specification quantifies a lubricant's level of performance without the consumer needing to know the physics behind motor oils, nor are they left wondering whether a particular product is suitable.
In principle, it wouldn't matter if the product were formulated using vegetable oil as it base stock - if it has OEM approval, then that product is bound by the same performance guarantees.
I think that is the guiding principle of the OEMs (as I understand it). It's not something I advocate with any great fervor, but I think it's a fairly reasonable method of selecting a suitable product. It's not perfect, but I don't think it has too many downsides.
Note: rather than submitting it to the OEM, a lubricant manufacturer may also decide to evaluate it themselves to see whether it would pass OEM requirements. In this case, lubricant manufacturers tend to use the phrase meets or exceeds if they feel confident enough to recommend the product for a particular application.
For example, the label might state something along the lines of:
This product is recommended for, and meets and exceeds the requirements of, VW 504.00/507.00
Or something to that effect. From a certification (and thus, warranty) perspective, these are distinct from approved products. Since lubricant performance hasn't been verified by Volkswagen, they are not bound to accept warranty claims of this nature. Thus, onus is transferred from the vehicle manufacturer and back to the consumer (who would then have to chase the lubricant manufacturer to recover costs).
It also goes without saying that not all products on the market that would pass OEM certification are ever submitted for OEM approval. I'd imagine it's quite a significant decision in terms of investment and development for some companies, so they'd have think carefully if an OEM certification and approval process is worth the cost.
Vehicle and lubricant manufacturers usually do not release such specific information to the general public.Quote:
Originally Posted by AnDyStYLe
My preference for 504/507 is guided by the contents in my first post, but 502/505 is fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by AnDyStYLe
Automotive engine oils are generally considered miscible with each other, irrespective of brand.Quote:
Originally Posted by AnDyStYLe
Do ensure, however, that the oil used for topping up has a similar performance level to the oil already in the engine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnDyStYLe
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnDyStYLe
Given the requirements of 504/507, I would expect the formulation of approved products to be composed with a mix of group III, group III+, group IV and group V base stocks (plus additives). If formulated well, such products offer excellent outcomes in terms of OEM requirements (every base stock has their own pros and cons in regards to performance parameters).Quote:
Originally Posted by AnDyStYLe
It is not likely an approved 504/507 product would predominately be composed of a single base stock.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Transporter
Given the requirements of 504/507, I would expect the formulation of approved products to be composed with a mix of group III, group III+, group IV and group V base stocks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Transporter
I would expect the specifications of VW oil standard 504.00/507.00 to be tightly defined. As such, one would not see much variance in HTHS or TBN values between approved products.Quote:
Originally Posted by Transporter
By definition, an approved 504/507 product must have a HTHS value of 3.5 or above, inline with many European OEM oil specifications. As all approved 504/507 products have a viscosity grade of 5W-30, I wouldn't expect these to have a HTHS value above 3.6 (maybe 3.7, tops).
504/507 is also a low-to-mid SAPS oil specification, so typical TBN values will range from 6 to 7 (similar to other Euro low-to-mid SAPS OEM oil specs).
Of the approved products available in Australia, that would seem to be the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Transporter
If the label states the product has been approved to 504.00/507.00, then Volkswagen have no grounds to deny a lubricant-related warranty claim. The whole basis of an open OEM certification based system would otherwise be rendered pointless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Transporter
Volkswagen may request proof of purchase, but they aren't interested in the product's origin or the nature of the transaction.
For the record, both the label and the print on the 1L bottle states that Mobil 1 Formula ESP 5W-30 was made in Europe. My was purchase was made through GL Lubricants back in 2012, who have an eBay, online and retail presence (in Regents Park, Sydney).
Germany is the only developed market that defines synthetic motor oil as 100% PAO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Transporter
Mobil products that do not fall into this category are labelled as SHC Synthese Technology in Germany, and Fully Synthetic in others. It reflects their decision to formulate their products with a combination of their newly developed group III+ (Mobil Visom) base stock, with group IV (PAO) and group V (ester) base stocks.
I think that products made with a combination of group III+, IV and V base stocks is of sufficient quality that I feel comfortable referring to them as synthetic.
The next big thing for motor oils is probably the mass market commercialisation of GTL base stocks (also group III+).
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Transporter
Not disastrous - just not guaranteed by Volkswagen, and thus, not a known quantity from the perspective of an ordinary consumer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amalgam
That's just an inevitable downside of operating any European vehicle outside of Europe. Same deal applies with service, repairs, parts and consumables.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amalgam
'Twas always thus, and always thus will be.
It would be unlikely there are no alternative products on market which can be successfully used in an application that calls for a VW oil specification.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amalgam
Part of the reason why so few people recommend using such products, irrespective of their suitability, is accountability.
If a lubricant without the required OEM certification or approval is used, then the onus of responsibility is transferred from the vehicle manufacturer to the consumer.
In the event that a lubricant-related warranty claim is denied by the vehicle manufacturer, on the basis that an unapproved or unsuitable lubricant was used, the consumer would then need to file a warranty claim with the lubricant manufacturer to recover costs.
Castrol is Volkswagen's commercial and technical partner, but one is not beholden to use exclusively Castrol engine lubricants.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amalgam
In an emergency or in life threatening situations, pragmatism (to me) dictates that any oil is better than no oil. Human > machine :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Amalgam
Developing economies have no need for advanced and relatively expensive lubricants (just for starters), as local infrastructure, fuel quality and market conditions does not allow the deployment of the latest advances in automotive technology.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amalgam
The use of 504.00/507.00 is not permitted in China, due to fuel quality concerns. Such markets are covered by 501.01, 502.00, 505.00 or 505.01 (as required).
Despite all this, the reality is that, even in these markets, operating a European-designed vehicle still takes a bit of forethought.
I'm sure there are products on the market that surpass what the VW oil specifications require. Some of these products might already have VW approval, and obviously, some do not.Quote:
Originally Posted by joel0407
The issue comes from definitively establishing what these products are.
To that, I cannot provide an answer that would meet my own standards for objectivity.
Modern cars need modern infrastructure, modern fuels and modern lubricants to perform as the maker intended.Quote:
Originally Posted by joel0407
Each model is often reflective of the technology that was present in its era, so it is an inescapable aspect of motoring in general.
Mate, I have no time to give you such detailed respond like you. But, when I say the Penrite is made mostly from the group3 base oil, I think it's obvious that MOSTLY means the Penrite is close to mineral or as you may prefer is more semisynthetic rather than fully synthetic. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel_vert
You say there are small differences in HTHS and TBN between the brands, of course there are, and as long as they use the decimal point, the difference between HTHS 3.5 and HTHS 3.7 is still difference otherwise they wouldn't bother with the decimal point.
TBN - some 507.00 oils has 5.8 some 6.5 again to me it's a difference and similar to flash point 210C compared to 248C is a significant difference to me.
When Germans give the oil approvals, I'm sure that some brands are passing just as a borderline and some exceeds their requirements.
I've spent a bit of time calling to oil companies, wanted to get some data that they've left out from their data sheets and can tell you that they were not willing to tell which group or what percentage of group3 base oil is their oil made from. Penrite said "mostly" group3 base oil, Fuchs Titan refused to say and gave no other info than is already out there.