IW STi Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
21 - 31 of 31 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,026 Posts
Discussion Starter #21
its not? so what % of it is a standard petroleum oil? it is a group III base. 1 is not just substantially better than another.

i checked their website they dont even have an msds link anywhere that i could find, which is somewhat bothersome.
btw why not show a VOA as well so we can compare to other brands in their - out of the bottle form.
Oil Extreme, as stated in the OP, is formed from a hydrocracked and catalytically dewaxed petroleum base stock. It is not a system of polymers like a pure synthetic but is, by definition, a synthetic.

Thanks for the call out!

Cory
Interior Flair
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,026 Posts
Discussion Starter #22
There is more than one way to skin a cat. There may always be a better way out there to do things. Keep your mind open to the possibility that the way you do it isn't the best and only way. If anything Royal Purple is just a brilliant marketing scheme.

If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always gotten.
I knew there would be push-back on this product-oil is a touchy subject in enthusiast communities. Everyone likes what they have always used and don't want to change. I understand that. What I have brought to the Subaru community is a product that significantly cuts engine and turbo wear and increases performance. However, it does require one to "think outside the box".

I have several local guineas (WRXs and STis) and as time goes on, the data compiled will back the product.

Thanks guys!

Cory
Interior Flair
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
I don't like the marketing of this product. A Group III base stock is neither "better" or "worse" than Group IV (PAO) or Group V (esters). Also, why does this oil not carry an API rating? They state the calcium carbonate is "an API approved additive," but nowhere do they claim or state ANY API specification.

Sorry, I'm not putting anything in my vehicle without an API SL or SM rating, especially without a VOA or UOA. It's pure marketing hype at this point. If you want a good oil that has data to back it, try Shell Rotella T Synthetic 5W40 (API SL).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,316 Posts
I don't like the marketing of this product. A Group III base stock is neither "better" or "worse" than Group IV (PAO) or Group V (esters). Also, why does this oil not carry an API rating? They state the calcium carbonate is "an API approved additive," but nowhere do they claim or state ANY API specification.

Sorry, I'm not putting anything in my vehicle without an API SL or SM rating, especially without a VOA or UOA. It's pure marketing hype at this point. If you want a good oil that has data to back it, try Shell Rotella T Synthetic 5W40 (API SL).
I have to disagree, PAO's and Esters are better than gp III base stocks, they have higher flash points, have a higher film strength and are just more robust in general, thats why they use Esters in jet aircraft, high pressure high heat app's need a oil that can take it. You will NEVER find a jet aircraft or anything else that runs so hot or takes so much abuse using a petroleum base.


Saying dinosaur oil is just as good as a synthetic is silly. Maybe a for a civic or just some regular daily beater dino oil is acceptable but in a high performance application, its a sin IMO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,316 Posts
The truth is the quality of the filter is more important than the quality of the oil.
IMO your dead wrong. When im revving my engine to 7k rpm my filter isnt doing NEARLY as much to protect my motor as my oil is, (in fact doesnt the oil by pass the filter at X,XXX rpm?) Run a crappy oil with the best filter you can find and your going to get a hell of a lot of engine wear, run the best oil you can find and a jank filter and your going to get a lot of wear. They are BOTH equally important, you need both high quality oil and a high quality filter, one is not more important than the other, at least on a street car. Now in a strictly racing application IMO the quality of the oil is way more important than the quality of the filter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,316 Posts
Everyone likes what they have always used and don't want to change. I understand that.
I actually just use what works :lol: I switch between AMS oil, motul and redline all the time, cant decide which one i like more, im too lazy to get a UOA but, redlines a group 5 base stock(iirc), the best for high heat applications (again iirc), motul is well, motul, nuff said... AMS oil is group 4 but independent tests show its better than redline. Not a big fan of these independent tests done by who knows who....So i use all of them. If i can find motul cheap thats my oil of choice. I like all these oils but if some REAL tests from multiple sources came and said XXXXX oil is better than i would drop all those and use the better oil. I use what works, im not a fan boy :cool:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,210 Posts
I actually just use what works :lol: I switch between AMS oil, motul and redline all the time, cant decide which one i like more, im too lazy to get a UOA but, redlines a group 5 base stock(iirc), the best for high heat applications (again iirc), motul is well, motul, nuff said... AMS oil is group 4 but independent tests show its better than redline. Not a big fan of these independent tests done by who knows who....So i use all of them. If i can find motul cheap thats my oil of choice. I like all these oils but if some REAL tests from multiple sources came and said XXXXX oil is better than i would drop all those and use the better oil. I use what works, im not a fan boy :cool:


I like the point you bring man. I also think oil reports have more to do with someones perticular car, and how they run it. So IMO oil reports in a sense cant be stated as "this is why its good" because one or two people got good reports. Maybe if 30 or 60 people are report with similar results I would definatly buy into it. But I am open minded to new better alternatives, even though my current setup works GREAT!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,026 Posts
Discussion Starter #29
I don't like the marketing of this product. A Group III base stock is neither "better" or "worse" than Group IV (PAO) or Group V (esters). Also, why does this oil not carry an API rating? They state the calcium carbonate is "an API approved additive," but nowhere do they claim or state ANY API specification.

Sorry, I'm not putting anything in my vehicle without an API SL or SM rating, especially without a VOA or UOA. It's pure marketing hype at this point. If you want a good oil that has data to back it, try Shell Rotella T Synthetic 5W40 (API SL).
That is your prerogative. I have been selling Oil Extreme and placed it into no fewer than 10,000 cars since 2002. Without exception, each time the customer noticed more smoothness, increased horsepower, and better gas mileage after switching to Oil Extreme.

An API certification costs at least $150,000.00 and really means nothing. Amsoil does not have API certification. I see API certification as nothing more than a marketing tool.

I have to disagree, PAO's and Esters are better than gp III base stocks, they have higher flash points, have a higher film strength and are just more robust in general, thats why they use Esters in jet aircraft, high pressure high heat app's need a oil that can take it. You will NEVER find a jet aircraft or anything else that runs so hot or takes so much abuse using a petroleum base.

Saying dinosaur oil is just as good as a synthetic is silly. Maybe a for a civic or just some regular daily beater dino oil is acceptable but in a high performance application, its a sin IMO.
All very true. However, we are not applying this product to a jet engine. We are applying it to a Subaru H-4 engine that benefits from an extreme pressure lubricant due to the nature of a severe duty application.. I am not saying Oil Extreme is as good as synthetic oil, I am saying it is better than synthetic because of it's extreme pressure properties. Also, the overbased calcium carbonate significantly increases the TBN (to 18). Most synthetics start with a TBN of less than 15. A lubricant, even a petroleum-based one, can be used in extended drain intervals if it has a higher TBN than regular petroleum.

If you are familiar with the Timken bearing test, Oil Extreme finally seized at 45 pounds of pressure utilizing the Timken bearing test medium.

IMO your dead wrong. When im revving my engine to 7k rpm my filter isnt doing NEARLY as much to protect my motor as my oil is, (in fact doesnt the oil by pass the filter at X,XXX rpm?) Run a crappy oil with the best filter you can find and your going to get a hell of a lot of engine wear, run the best oil you can find and a jank filter and your going to get a lot of wear. They are BOTH equally important, you need both high quality oil and a high quality filter, one is not more important than the other, at least on a street car. Now in a strictly racing application IMO the quality of the oil is way more important than the quality of the filter.
Once again, you are correct. Using a great extreme pressure oil with a great filter is double insurance. That is what this package is-double insurance.

I actually just use what works :lol: I switch between AMS oil, motul and redline all the time, cant decide which one i like more, im too lazy to get a UOA but, redlines a group 5 base stock(iirc), the best for high heat applications (again iirc), motul is well, motul, nuff said... AMS oil is group 4 but independent tests show its better than redline. Not a big fan of these independent tests done by who knows who....So i use all of them. If i can find motul cheap thats my oil of choice. I like all these oils but if some REAL tests from multiple sources came and said XXXXX oil is better than i would drop all those and use the better oil. I use what works, im not a fan boy :cool:
I totally agree. All of the oils you use are fantastic and have the best stability over time. You can also run Amsoil, Motul, and Redline longer due to this stability.

However, they do not have the extreme pressure properties of Oil Extreme. What this means is during the most extreme temperatures and pressures, the micro-molecule thin-film technology boundary layer protection formed by Oil Extreme will not break down and micro-shear bearing surfaces and other moving metal parts under stress in your engine. Over time, this significantly reduces the wear in your engine.

So in the end who would win the shoot out between Eneos, Royal Purple and This stuff you have here?
Oil Extreme will show a higher base TBN and exhibit much greater boundary layer protection due to overbased calcium carbonate. Calcium carbonate is known to be one of best extreme pressure agents for use in oil. However, before Oil Extreme, only small amounts could be incorporated by an additive package because it would settle out of the oil and end up in the bottom of the oil pan, bottle, barrel. The Tribologist that developed the calcium carbonate extreme pressure additive package in Oil Extreme discovered the hydrocarbon that when used keeps the calcium carbonate suspended in the oil and not settle out.

I like the point you bring man. I also think oil reports have more to do with someones perticular car, and how they run it. So IMO oil reports in a sense cant be stated as "this is why its good" because one or two people got good reports. Maybe if 30 or 60 people are report with similar results I would definatly buy into it. But I am open minded to new better alternatives, even though my current setup works GREAT!
Very true. However, I am marketing this product to the Subaru community and my test samples will go as follows:

3100 mile WRX dino oil
0 mile Oil Extreme (VOA)
0 mile Royal Purple (VOA)
6,000 mile WRX Oil Extreme
6,000 mile STi Oil Extreme

LMK if there is anything else that needs addtion to the list above.

Thanks for all the counterpoints guys. This forum is full of very educated motorheads! LOL!

Cory
Interior Flair
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
You missed my point, Oil Extreme claims it is BETTER than group IV/group V base stocks.

While I agree with you conceptually, we don't run jet engines. A group 3 base stock quality synthetic with a good additive package would probably be fine. That said, I run RTS in my personal car.

I have to disagree, PAO's and Esters are better than gp III base stocks, they have higher flash points, have a higher film strength and are just more robust in general, thats why they use Esters in jet aircraft, high pressure high heat app's need a oil that can take it. You will NEVER find a jet aircraft or anything else that runs so hot or takes so much abuse using a petroleum base.


Saying dinosaur oil is just as good as a synthetic is silly. Maybe a for a civic or just some regular daily beater dino oil is acceptable but in a high performance application, its a sin IMO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,026 Posts
Discussion Starter #31
You missed my point, Oil Extreme claims it is BETTER than group IV/group V base stocks.

While I agree with you conceptually, we don't run jet engines. A group 3 base stock quality synthetic with a good additive package would probably be fine. That said, I run RTS in my personal car.
And to qualify the statement, only with respect to extreme pressure properties. There is no way a Group III base stock (hydrocracked and catalytically dewaxed petroleum) is as good as a Group IV/V base stock in terms of resistivity to thermal breakdown, fuel dilution, and overall stability. However, Group IV/V base stocks do not have the extreme pressure properties of Oil Extreme.
 
21 - 31 of 31 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top