Schaeffer's 8008 vs pennzoil euro lx 0w30

tydaddy · Feb 11, 2019

I havent been able to locate much about the schaeffer's. I've seen the spec sheets of both. I love schaeffer's as a company and have used their fluids in all of my vehicles. It seems the 0w30 might be better?

schaeffer's- about $6.75 qt
Pennzoil - $10 qt

2014 touareg tdi.

Was hoping Bob fout or frank would chime in!

https://www.pennzoil.com/en_us/prod...ro_LX_SAE_0W-30_Fully_Synthetic_Motor_Oil.pdf

https://www.schaefferoil.com/documents/288-8008-td.pdf

andreigbs · Feb 11, 2019

I'm no oil guru, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last....month.

It appears the Schaeffer's PDF states their oil "is suitable" for bla bla bla, whereas the Pennzoil "is approved" for bla bla bla.

To me, those are two distinct qualifications. It implies one oil may safely (defined as??) be used in certain vehicles where the other has been approved for use in certain vehicles.

Also, the qualifier "better" is such a loaded term without hard specifications and details that are probably above most people's heads unless one is an experienced tribologist.

If it were me and those were my two options, I'd stick to the approved oil. Just in case...

turbobrick240 · Feb 11, 2019

Those are both excellent 5w30 low SAPS diesel oils. Stick with the Schaeffers if you like it. It's a tad bit thicker and a better value.

tydaddy · Feb 11, 2019

turbobrick240 said:
Those are both excellent 5w30 low SAPS diesel oils. Stick with the Schaeffers if you like it. It's a tad bit thicker and a better value.

The pennzoil is a 0w30. But I appreciate your input.

tydaddy · Feb 11, 2019

andreigbs said:
I'm no oil guru, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last....month.

It appears the Schaeffer's PDF states their oil "is suitable" for bla bla bla, whereas the Pennzoil "is approved" for bla bla bla.

To me, those are two distinct qualifications. It implies one oil may safely (defined as??) be used in certain vehicles where the other has been approved for use in certain vehicles.

Also, the qualifier "better" is such a loaded term without hard specifications and details that are probably above most people's heads unless one is an experienced tribologist.

If it were me and those were my two options, I'd stick to the approved oil. Just in case...

I've used the pennzoil in my 2010 touareg. But I love schaeffers as a company. I'm really on the fence. The vi of the pennzoil is remarkable. But the price if the schaeffers is better than any other acceptable 5w30.

turbobrick240 · Feb 11, 2019

tydaddy said:
The pennzoil is a 0w30. But I appreciate your input.

The spec sheets you linked are both 5w30.

tydaddy · Feb 11, 2019

turbobrick240 said:
The spec sheets you linked are both 5w30.

My bad.

https://www.pennzoil.com/en_us/prod...ro_LX_SAE_0W-30_Fully_Synthetic_Motor_Oil.pdf

turbobrick240 · Feb 11, 2019

The Pennzoil would probably be better in Alaska. Polar vortices notwithstanding, the 8008 better for the lower 48. I've usually seen 12 centistokes vis @ 100°C as the lower limit of what I'd put in a tdi. I also wouldn't pay $10/qt, when the $6 or $7 stuff is more than adequate.

tydaddy · Feb 12, 2019

turbobrick240 said:
The Pennzoil would probably be better in Alaska. Polar vortices notwithstanding, the 8008 better for the lower 48. I've usually seen 12 centistokes vis @ 100°C as the lower limit of what I'd put in a tdi. I also wouldn't pay $10/qt, when the $6 or $7 stuff is more than adequate.

See that's the thing I'm unsure of. My assumption is that 0w has better cold flow properties across the board - weather -20, 20, or 60. The 0w should always flow better. But now I'm wondering if their flow properties might be similar except at extremey cold temps. I simply dont know enough about petroleum flow properties.

tikal · Feb 12, 2019

tydaddy said:
See that's the thing I'm unsure of. My assumption is that 0w has better cold flow properties across the board - weather -20, 20, or 60. The 0w should always flow better. But now I'm wondering if their flow properties might be similar except at extremey cold temps. I simply dont know enough about petroleum flow properties.

This might be helpful (among others):

https://www.widman.biz/English/Calculators/Graph.html

Franko6 · Feb 13, 2019

I didn't stay at Holiday Inn, so my input probably won't mean much.

I assume it's one of the V-10, -8 or -6 engines... My single thought with the V-10 in particular, is the cylinder wall is Alumasil, which means there is no boring the block or oversize pistons... Nothing like that. So, the real question is, what's best for the aluminum block and it's alumasil surface? If there is some claim of superior life with the alumasil, I'd use that oil.

Now, for the second part of the question... oil weight. My contention about oil weight is that CAPA seems to have too much to say about the viscosity. Since there is a push for better fuel economy, year-by-year, one of the techniques is to use thinner oil to reduce whatever parasitic drag viscosity may incur.

I think the loss in economy is very slight, going from a more conventional 5-40 instead of the 5-30. And, the 5-30 designated is low ash, which for example, Rotella T-6 always touted, so the DPF will not be adversely affected. But the bigger issue from the engines I have seen, and again, this is little to do with the V series engines, but the common rail 2.0 engines I have opened up show excessive piston/ cylinder wear compared to the previous ALH and PD motors. I attribute this to what seems to be higher cylinder temps and the thinner oil.

In my opinion, unless you are hampered by a warranty that requires you to run the 5-30 weight oil, I would be looking for a 5-40 weight, low ash oil. I do think Schaeffer's meets the bill.

I will note, the 507.00 oil intended for the common rail does not need the additional sacrificial elements found in the 505.01 oils, as an overhead cam would need, but the 505.01 oil will be better for the cylinder bores. The addition of that moly-disulfide should make no real difference to a rocker/ roller cam, as there are in the 2.0 common rail engines.

In all, this is only a personal opinion, developed from what cylinder wear I've seen in the most common, common rail VW engines, the 2.0 CBEA and CJAA. I have never seen any cylinder bores for any of the EA288's or any of the other V series engines except the V-10, which I show little interest in going there ever again.

tydaddy · Feb 13, 2019

Franko6 said:
I didn't stay at Holiday Inn, so my input probably won't mean much.

I assume it's one of the V-10, -8 or -6 engines... My single thought with the V-10 in particular, is the cylinder wall is Alumasil, which means there is no boring the block or oversize pistons... Nothing like that. So, the real question is, what's best for the aluminum block and it's alumasil surface? If there is some claim of superior life with the alumasil, I'd use that oil.

Now, for the second part of the question... oil weight. My contention about oil weight is that CAPA seems to have too much to say about the viscosity. Since there is a push for better fuel economy, year-by-year, one of the techniques is to use thinner oil to reduce whatever parasitic drag viscosity may incur.

I think the loss in economy is very slight, going from a more conventional 5-40 instead of the 5-30. And, the 5-30 designated is low ash, which for example, Rotella T-6 always touted, so the DPF will not be adversely affected. But the bigger issue from the engines I have seen, and again, this is little to do with the V series engines, but the common rail 2.0 engines I have opened up show excessive piston/ cylinder wear compared to the previous ALH and PD motors. I attribute this to what seems to be higher cylinder temps and the thinner oil.

In my opinion, unless you are hampered by a warranty that requires you to run the 5-30 weight oil, I would be looking for a 5-40 weight, low ash oil. I do think Schaeffer's meets the bill.

I will note, the 507.00 oil intended for the common rail does not need the additional sacrificial elements found in the 505.01 oils, as an overhead cam would need, but the 505.01 oil will be better for the cylinder bores. The addition of that moly-disulfide should make no real difference to a rocker/ roller cam, as there are in the 2.0 common rail engines.

In all, this is only a personal opinion, developed from what cylinder wear I've seen in the most common, common rail VW engines, the 2.0 CBEA and CJAA. I have never seen any cylinder bores for any of the EA288's or any of the other V series engines except the V-10, which I show little interest in going there ever again.

Thanks so much! It is the 3.0 vw tdi. I've used the schaeffers 9000 in the past in my 2006 v10 and had good results. I was assuming the the 0w30 would provide better start up characteristics/less wear, and that the xw30's would provide better fuel economy, although didnt consider how negligible it might be, realistically.

So, I've recommended the 9000 to many people based on your recommendations I've read in the forums. I guess I shall stick with that?

Thanks. I've been obsessing about this for days. Lol. I always do every time I get a "new to me" vehicle.

andreigbs · Feb 13, 2019

.... which for example, Rotella T-6 always touted, so the DPF will not be adversely affected...

Rant:
At the risk of igniting brand wars (breathe, people) that's my thinking as well. And while I'm currently maintaining 2 common rail diesels, the MB is soon to be out of CPO warranty (ends May 2019) and I'd rather keep the motor healthier and happier than focus on the DPF which may or may not fall off at some point. Rust is an ugly thing...

Some say that VW specifies an ash content of 0.6 or 0.8% (forget which), and that the current formulation of the CK-4 synth oils like Rotella T6 is "over the limit" at 1.0%.

Now, forgive me, but do we honestly believe that a difference of 0.2% (or even 0.4%) will be the imminent death of a DPF? Realistically, how many miles would that take? And just to introduce another variable, what if your engine burns more oil than mine? Won't that throw off the ash numbers anyway?

Bottom line: do I sacrifice engine wear for DPF protection?

tydaddy · Feb 13, 2019

andreigbs said:
Rant:
At the risk of igniting brand wars (breathe, people) that's my thinking as well. And while I'm currently maintaining 2 common rail diesels, the MB is soon to be out of CPO warranty (ends May 2019) and I'd rather keep the motor healthier and happier than focus on the DPF which may or may not fall off at some point. Rust is an ugly thing...

Some say that VW specifies an ash content of 0.6 or 0.8% (forget which), and that the current formulation of the CK-4 synth oils like Rotella T6 is "over the limit" at 1.0%.

Now, forgive me, but do we honestly believe that a difference of 0.2% (or even 0.4%) will be the imminent death of a DPF? Realistically, how many miles would that take? And just to introduce another variable, what if your engine burns more oil than mine? Won't that throw off the ash numbers anyway?

Bottom line: do I sacrifice engine wear for DPF protection?

All good thoughts. And I agree. If it weren't for the fix, and extended emissions warranty, I'd have ripped the damn thing off already. Just chomping at the bit for malone stage 2.

andreigbs · Feb 13, 2019

tydaddy said:
All good thoughts. And I agree. If it weren't for the fix, and extended emissions warranty, I'd have ripped the damn thing off already. Just chomping at the bit for malone stage 2.

And as an interesting (or not) tangent, because the whole diesel emissions debate and subsequent fiasco is mostly a result of the overarching "man-made global change" farce (VW's lies and denial notwithstanding), alarmist climatologists believe that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is what's driving the change; not the Sun's activity, not the natural cycles of warming and cooling going on for millenia, not highly increased volcanic/geologic activity in the last several centuries, not deforestation in the Amazon and other "lungs" of the planet, etc etc ad nauseam.

But the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is only 0.4%, and so as scientists (many of which AGW cultists) they tell us with a straight face that 0.4% of the atmosphere is the only variable that counts, and that mankind is directly at fault because we are putting that CO2 there.

My point is that if society buys into AGW and believes that 0.4% of a gas is the main culprit for the climate changing, it stands to reason that many people might also believe that 0.2 - 0.4% more ash in the DPF will result in certain destruction.

oilhammer · Feb 13, 2019

Haha, you'll get in trouble with the enviro-nuts with a post like that!

NASA had an interesting article a few years ago relating to solar relationships and Earth's climate. It got buried. But, the gist of it is that because of this little thing called gravity, whenever Jupiter and Saturn are near each other in their orbits around the sun, it pulls the sun harder towards them, since both the gas giants' collective mass is enough to do this. Actually, all the planets effect the sun's position to some extent, but only the two big boys have the most pull, and when they are close to each other with relation to their orbit (as opposed to being on opposite sides of the sun) they cause this phenomenon of hyper weather patterns on Earth. Because of Earth's relatively fast orbital speed, when Jupiter and Saturn are close, we get "squeezed" closer to the sun when we pass between the sun and the gas giants, and get slung out further when we are on the opposite sides. This difference is enough to change things pretty much.

Guess where Jupiter and Saturn are right now?

www.theplanetstoday.com

And they are getting closer, because Jupiter, closer to the sun, orbits faster, and is catching up to Saturn. Since these planets orbit so slowly relative to the Earth, these effects last for a long time. Not just one season.

Jupiter takes almost 12 years to orbit the sun.

Saturn takes almost 30 years.

Do the math (or find a neat animation, they are out there) and you can see that there is a LOT more to climatology than just mankind. That said, I still think doing everything we can within our technological limits while providing a decent way of life and not being wasteful just because it is convenient to do so is a good thing.

flee · Feb 13, 2019

andreigbs said:
And as an interesting (or not) tangent, because the whole diesel emissions debate and subsequent fiasco is mostly a result of the overarching "man-made global change" farce (VW's lies and denial notwithstanding), alarmist climatologists believe that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is what's driving the change; not the Sun's activity, not the natural cycles of warming and cooling going on for millenia, not highly increased volcanic/geologic activity in the last several centuries, not deforestation in the Amazon and other "lungs" of the planet, etc etc ad nauseam.
But the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is only 0.4%, and so as scientists (many of which AGW cultists) they tell us with a straight face that 0.4% of the atmosphere is the only variable that counts, and that mankind is directly at fault because we are putting that CO2 there.
My point is that if society buys into AGW and believes that 0.4% of a gas is the main culprit for the climate changing, it stands to reason that many people might also believe that 0.2 - 0.4% more ash in the DPF will result in certain destruction.

Take a breath or you'll choke on your Kool-ade.
Maybe then you can cite a single factual reference for the (politically motivated) assertions above.

Franko6 · Feb 13, 2019

Be careful... last time I made a reference to anything enviro-related, I got demerits and my post removed by the environmental truth police.

But with that said, the temperature of Mercury has risen 80 degrees; equal per distance for the changes on our own blue marble. I'm sure we must have done something to cause that.

Back to the real point... the amount of ash in oil you can often see, as it will sink to the bottom of a barrel of oil. The percentages are small. I got bigger fish to fry. WHO FREAKIN' CARES! It's miniscule...

But that is the Great Minds at work, directing our daily lives, whom I call by a vulgar curse word... bureaucrats.

tydaddy · Feb 13, 2019

You guys are awesome. That is all.

Oilhammer. Any thoughts as to my original oil question?

I'm comfortable with the 9000...and it's a bit cheaper than the 8008. About $6 qt.

turbobrick240 · Feb 13, 2019

Nobel laureates we are not. Let's stay focused on the oil discussion and leave the science to the scientists.

I'd be comfortable with the 9000 or really any CK-4 5w40 too. Yeah, the dpf will ash load a bit faster, but it shouldn't be a huge difference. There are also mb 229.51 rated 5w40 oils that have the same .8% sulphated ash limit that the 507 spec calls for. Valvoline MST is a popular one.

oilhammer · Feb 13, 2019

tydaddy said:
You guys are awesome. That is all.

Oilhammer. Any thoughts as to my original oil question?

.

I just use whatever proper spec oil is available for a reasonable price and is easily obtained. I don't overthink it, and this hasn't failed me yet.

I will, however, offer the fact that these engines that have been "fixed" are no longer really operating the way they were perhaps intended, and to which the oil specs were perhaps formulated. So maybe it doesn't really matter as much.

I will also offer this:

Same car, same driver, same engine, same oil, same filter, same interval. One is 100% stock, the other is after a DPF/EGR delete. The Dieselgate "fix" will only make the issue worse. More fuel use, more aggressive EGR duty cycle, more regens, etc.

truman · Feb 13, 2019

Rather shocking

flee · Feb 13, 2019

The clean-looking filter must be from a engine with nearly zero blow-by.
A certain deleted ALH I know of has a 'black as the Ace of Spades' filter every time.

andreigbs · Feb 13, 2019

Take a breath or you'll choke on your Kool-ade.
Maybe then you can cite a single factual reference for the (politically motivated) assertions above.

LOL, you Cali guys are funny. Just 2 references, one for the CO2 concentration and the other saying the humans are responsible for it. Facts are facts, they don't care about your feelings.

Oh, and it's "Kool-Aid."

https://sciencing.com/percentage-carbon-dioxide-up-earths-atmosphere-4474.html

https://www.sprep.org/attachments/Publications/FactSheet/PMCCT/What_causes_CC_FS1.pdf

OK, back on topic with apologies to the ~~enviro-weenies~~ environ-mentalists.

Oilhammer, I've read about the phenomenon before and the physics makes sense. But if goobermint can find a way to tax it, you can count on them doing it "for the children."

As to the engine oil issue and how the "fix" has basically changed all working parameters of the combustion and emissions system, that's why I'd be more concerned about keeping my engine healthy, instead of focusing solely on the DPF.

If the 507 spec oil will ensure that my "fixed" TDI engine lives a long and happy life, I'll stick with it. If there's an oil that can do it better, I might use it instead.

Frank, demerits for exercising your free speech? Thoughtcrime and newspeak are here. Ash numbers are indeed small fries, I could care less for such an insignificant difference. If one cares about their warranty, that's one thing. If not, then act accordingly

flee · Feb 13, 2019

andreigbs said:
LOL, you Cali guys are funny. Just 2 references, one for the CO2 concentration and the other saying the humans are responsible for it. Facts are facts, they don't care about your feelings.
Oh, and it's "Kool-Aid."
https://sciencing.com/percentage-carbon-dioxide-up-earths-atmosphere-4474.html
https://www.sprep.org/attachments/Publications/FactSheet/PMCCT/What_causes_CC_FS1.pdf
OK, back on topic with apologies to the ~~enviro-weenies~~ environ-mentalists.
Oilhammer, I've read about the phenomenon before and the physics makes sense. But if goobermint can find a way to tax it, you can count on them doing it "for the children."
As to the engine oil issue and how the "fix" has basically changed all working parameters of the combustion and emissions system, that's why I'd be more concerned about keeping my engine healthy, instead of focusing solely on the DPF.
If the 507 spec oil will ensure that my "fixed" TDI engine lives a long and happy life, I'll stick with it. If there's an oil that can do it better, I might use it instead.
Frank, demerits for exercising your free speech? Thoughtcrime and newspeak are here. Ash numbers are indeed small fries, I could care less for such an insignificant difference. If one cares about their warranty, that's one thing. If not, then act accordingly

I would expect a regular drinker to know the correct spelling, thanks for that.
What I was hoping for was the facts that connect the diesel emissions 'fiasco'
with the rant about CO2 being increased by whatever is doing it.
Your mouth foam seems to have obscured the actual science behind reducing NOx
and its relationship to local air quality: science that improves the quality of life and air.
As far as I know, you can't burn fuel and create energy without making more CO2.
Maybe if the teachers in Wisconsin were allowed to unionize (freedom of choice)
instead of being prohibited by the government the people there could learn how to think.

CleverUserName · Feb 13, 2019

andreigbs said:
Rant:
At the risk of igniting brand wars (breathe, people) that's my thinking as well. And while I'm currently maintaining 2 common rail diesels, the MB is soon to be out of CPO warranty (ends May 2019) and I'd rather keep the motor healthier and happier than focus on the DPF which may or may not fall off at some point. Rust is an ugly thing...

Some say that VW specifies an ash content of 0.6 or 0.8% (forget which), and that the current formulation of the CK-4 synth oils like Rotella T6 is "over the limit" at 1.0%.

Now, forgive me, but do we honestly believe that a difference of 0.2% (or even 0.4%) will be the imminent death of a DPF? Realistically, how many miles would that take? And just to introduce another variable, what if your engine burns more oil than mine? Won't that throw off the ash numbers anyway?

Bottom line: do I sacrifice engine wear for DPF protection?

No because the DPF can be cleaned or replaced for far less than the engine.

Oil volatility % and w-rating and viscosity spread has more a greater effect on ash loading to the DPF than using a CJ or CK type oil.

If you use a 10w30 or 15w40 synthetic the volatility is typically < 5%. Where a 0w30 or 5w40 will be 9-12%. Syn 10w30 is good to -10F. If you don’t need a 5w or 0w then use the higher W ratings because thicker base oils have advantages in warmer weather.

The 10w40 I’m using now has better cold flow properties in the moderate CA winters than the D1 ESP 5w40 I was using before. It also eliminated the top end noise I had at startup while using Delvac. With that said the better flow properties only work to 0F while the Delvac would be suitable to -20F.

I’m also not surprised at what Frank06 said about the excess wear and scoring in the CBEA. I had a dieselgeek magnetic drain plug in my ‘09 and it was always covered in iron particles. My UOAs also showed high iron. My theory was that the fuel would wash off the oil in the cylinders and pistons during the regen cycle and the inadequacies of VW507 made it worse. I would never use 507 ever again after seeing all that iron. Glad VW bought that car back cause I don’t think it would have lasted to 400k miles.

turbobrick240 · Feb 13, 2019

Noack volatility really doesn't impact ash loading of the dpf much unless you have an oil burner. This is because the lighter carbon chains that evaporate from the oil don't create ash. The ash comes from the elements in the additive package(calcium, phosphorous, zinc, etc.) that don't vaporize off with the lighter fractions.

CleverUserName · Feb 13, 2019

turbobrick240 said:
Noack volatility really doesn't impact ash loading of the dpf. This is because the lighter carbon chains that evaporate from the oil don't create ash. The ash comes from the elements in the additive package(calcium, phosphorous, zinc, etc.) that don't vaporize off with the lighter fractions.

If this statement was true, then why are all the manufacturers moving to low-ash oils in vehicles equipped with DPFs? Because there are many different sources of metallic ash in oils. Some may be be transported as oil vapor and others not. Only scientific testing of each type of oil can prove your statement because formulators and blenders are not forthcoming with ingredients as they are considered trade secrets...

With that said, base oil thickness is directly related to NOACK, PCV oil mist quantity/tendency and flash point. Thicker oils with 10w and 15w ratings will all have reduced migration into the combustion chamber because of the reasons above.

A filtered vapor recovery device can remove > 99% of oil from interning the combustion chamber and if anyone is truly concerned with ash loading should be installing one of these ASAP.

turbobrick240 · Feb 13, 2019

Yes, low ash is the important criterion. Noack, not so much. The Noack volatility limit for vw 507 is 11%, mb 229.51- 10%, and CK-4- 13%.

CleverUserName · Feb 13, 2019

turbobrick240 said:
Yes, low ash is the important criterion. Noack, not so much. The Noack volatility limit for vw 507 is 11%, mb 229.51- 10%, and CK-4- 13%.

You fail to see the point I’m trying to make. It’s a logical fallacy. Why is low ash important if ALL metallic additives can’t migrate to the combustion chamber within the oil vapor?

Why would each manufacturer have a limit? What’s the point?

Schaeffer's 8008 vs pennzoil euro lx 0w30

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Top Post Dawg

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Top Post Dawg

Veteran Member

Top Post Dawg

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Vendor , w/Business number

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Certified Volkswagen Nut & Vendor

Veteran Member

Vendor , w/Business number

Veteran Member

Top Post Dawg

Certified Volkswagen Nut & Vendor

Top Post Dawg

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Top Post Dawg

Veteran Member

Top Post Dawg

Veteran Member