ConocoPhillips introduces diesel engine oil with exclusive 'Liquid Titanium'

[LBZ Owner]

ConocoPhillips Co. has introduced Guardol ECT with Liquid Titanium, which it said is a premium-tier API CJ-4 diesel engine oil formulated with an exclusive additive that provides enhanced engine wear protection, reduced bearing corrosion, and has increased oxidation stability. Guardol ECT with Liquid Titanium is an enhancement to ConocoPhillips’ existing API CJ-4 synthetic blend diesel engine oil made from an advanced, low SAPS (sulfated ash, phosphorous and sulfur) technology, and is approved under the latest heavy-duty engine oil specifications from major engine builders, according to the manufacturer.
“Guardol ECT with Liquid Titanium is engineered from advanced high-performance additives and a blend of synthetic and high-quality Group II base stocks. It is the first and only multi-grade, heavy-duty engine oil of its kind, which raises the bar for novel diesel engine oil technology,” says Reginald Dias, Director, Commercial Products, ConocoPhillips Co. “Liquid Titanium is a powerful additive that strongly bonds to metal surfaces at the molecular level, adding an extra layer of protection to further reduce wear on critical parts and help extend engine life. It also increases the oxidation stability of the oil, helping to prolong oil life during service. These product enhancements provide added value to fleet owners and operators by helping to improve engine performance, reduce maintenance, extend drain intervals, and protect the investment.”
As part of its superior engine-protection features, Guardol ECT with Liquid Titanium shows reduced wear of critical parts in the severe Cummins ISB test. It also shows reduced wear, less deposits and increased oil-oxidation stability in other industry standard engine tests and bench tests, ConocoPhillips reports.
Guardol ECT with Liquid Titanium replaces Guardol ECT product in ConocoPhillips’ existing API CJ-4 heavy-duty engine oil line, and is now available.
To locate a marketer in your area or receive additional information about this new offering, visit http://www.conocophillipslubricants.com/.

[Dirtbikindad393]

I would be curious to know how much it costs. If its close to others that are full synthetic my question would be why would you want a synthetic blend when you can have the full synthetic for the same money? Blend scares me because they will never tell you what the mix is. It could be 90/10 just enough to call it synthetic "blend" which kind of defeats the purpose of synthetic. Its more of a marketing ploy being able to put synthetic on the label in my opinion.

Also if your an oil geek like me wouldn't you want synthetics made from group IV base stocks (PAO) which are one of the best that can be used in the formualtion of a full synthetic. Mobil 1 and Amsoil are the only two that I know of that use the PAO base stocks.

I am not bagging on it I would like to learn more about it so I can bag on it later once I am informed enought to bag on it........LOL

Really though I try not to bag on anything but I do find myself bagging on Fram filters and RP gear oils both are pretty bad in their respective catagories.

[LT3Diesel]

What about Schaeffers? They use POA base stocks.

[Dirtbikindad393]

Originally Posted by LT3Diesel

What about Schaeffers? They use POA base stocks.

Yes Schaffers too they are made with PAO base stocks.

[OilGuy2]

This oil may be a nice compliment my titanium golf balls

Both Shaeffers products are PAO blends - even the full syn 9000 that isn't CJ-4 licensed.

[LT3Diesel]

Originally Posted by OilGuy2

This oil may be a nice compliment my titanium golf balls

Both Shaeffers products are PAO blends - even the full syn 9000 that isn't CJ-4 licensed.

Not CJ-4 licensed??? I am looking at a Gallon of Schaeffers 9000 5w-40 right now and it says exceeds CJ-4 requirements??? I would think they would have to be licensed to put it on their container as such. Here is a link for the Schaeffers 9000 5w-40: http://www.schaefferoil.com/datapdf/9000.pdf Honestly even Bob the oil guy rates Schaeffers products top notch...not saying they are better than Amsoil or mobil 1 but they are certainly as good, and just maybe they are better, but with oils this good how much better can you get. They for certain are cheaper...I can get a gallon of the syn 9000 for around $17 shipped to my door(with a $300 purchase there is no shipping, atleast that is what I paid a few months ago) which is far cheaper then Amsoil or Mobil 1....geez that is probably half the price of Amsoil. Don't get me wrong I use some Amsoil products too...that is what is in my differentials and power steering system. When you compare BOTH PRICE and QUALITY of synthetics in regards to motor oils, I think Schaeffers is the hands down winner when it comes to 5w-40 oil. The price is considerably less for a comparable product.

[OilGuy2]

http://eolcs.api.org/DisplayLicenseI...LicenseNo=0032

Their 7000 is quality stuff, and they are willing to let an independent 3rd party validate the minimum performance level for the spec they claim (only costs ~$1000 to do so). Not so for 9000, hmmm... Just blindly believe me, I want to sell you something... Many seem to have had good luck with it though.

Alternate link - or go to www.eolcs.api.org and type in schaeffer
http://eolcs.api.org/DisplayCompanyI...mpanyID=227109

Lawsuits cost lots of money and give free advertising

[LT3Diesel]

Your link doesn't seem to work...if they didn't meet the standard how can they claim to on their packaging and spec sheet without being subject to a lawsuit? Any web page can be altered, out dated, or even incorrect. Like I said nothing comes up when I use your link but I trust their label and spec sheet that it is compliant, otherwise they could easily be sued. Why would they leave themselves open for litigation. The simple answer is that they wouldn't....your claim makes no sense to me. Schaeffers has a top notch reputation. In all honesty it makes no difference to me because the LBZ and LLY don't require the new API service...only the LMM does and I don't own an LMM. Some have even suggested it is better to use the previous API standard because the TBN is generally higher than the new standard, however the TBN may not deplete as fast with the new API standard. I am not sure if any testing has been done in regards to this.

[Idle_Chatter]

Originally Posted by LT3Diesel

Your link doesn't seem to work...if they didn't meet the standard how can they claim to on their packaging and spec sheet without being subject to a lawsuit? Any web page can be altered, out dated, or even incorrect. Like I said nothing comes up when I use your link but I trust their label and spec sheet that it is compliant, otherwise they could easily be sued. Why would they leave themselves open for litigation. The simple answer is that they wouldn't....your claim makes no sense to me. Schaeffers has a top notch reputation. To me it makes no difference because the LBZ and LLY don't require the new API service...only the LMM does. Some have even suggested it is better to use the previous API standard because the TBN is generally higher than the new standard, however the TBN may not deplete as fast with the new API standard. I am not sure if any testing has been done in regards to this.

Schaeffers is good stuff and I'm not trying to attack it, I'm just pointing out a major logical flaw in your assumption. IF it were CJ-4 CERTIFIED they would say so. There is no liability in claiming that it "meets" CJ-4 spec - there WOULD be liability if they claimed it WAS CJ-4 certified without the cert. So that means that claiming it "meets" CJ-4 and not listing a valid CJ-4 cert means that it is NOT certified CJ-4.

[LT3Diesel]

Show me exactly where where it is stated that it is not API certified? So far I haven't seen anything to confirm this or not. That is what I asked. Just because someone states that it isn't doesn't make it so. Whether it is or isn't doesn't change the fact that it is a top notch lubricant which is undisputed by those who know lubricants. I was simply questioning someones statement that is wasn't. I am no lawyer but I am pretty certain that your splitting hairs legally. If you claim your product meets or exceeds a specific standard and it doesn't you certainly would be liable. So even if they haven't paid for the certification they would still be liable if there product did not comply with the API service they claimed it did. I am sure that their product meets/exceeds the API services listed on the spec sheet whether certified or not....again if it didn't they would open themselves up to litigation.