11 Mustang GT, Amsoil SigSeries 10w-30, 7304 miles

[Doug Hillary]

Hi,
Dave - It is demeaning for you to have to "prove your credentials and impartiality" on this Forum

I for one - amongst many others - appreciate your unbiased and professional input. Please keep it up - for all of us who treat this Forum with due respect!!

Thanks

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
But ...

It does matter to those who may not be well informed. It matters when we have noobs or lurkers who visit and try to learn.


Thanks for that focus. It is extremely important to preserve this site's integrity. Many folks simply do not realize how much conventional oils have improved over the last several years.

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: Unleashedbeast
Checkmate, you lose

Something for you to make excuses about in 3, 2, 1.....

I challenge you....

show me something that even comes close in your "petroleum" world.

Besides, I have no interest battling an admin on BITOG about big oil versus the "little guy" blender.

Good day to you sir, I'm out.



Just so facts are known here, I did the homework for you ...
Here are the values for that link you set up, as of the morning of 10-12-12 per the info in that link, which directs us to a SVT site where your thread has some data stored:

...............OCI...Al.....Fe......Cu......Pb
avg............3.0...8.7...22.3...14.1...6.2
stdev..........1.6...5.8...11.1...20.1...11.8
ppm/1k..............2.9...7.5.....4.7....2.1

Sir, that is not impressive overall. The wear rates are very average, and actually a bit above the "normal" overall. There are a lot of factory fills in there, and the average UOA is basically low mileage. Of the 43 UOAs, they are all full syns, which means you have zero data for alternative lubes. For the kind of money and super short OCI, I don't understand how you (or anyone) could stand on that record and boast; it's just not impressive. If that's your idea of "proof" of your claim that syns are so superior, I for one believe your data belies your own claims in that there is NOTHING superior about those results. Is that your standard of excellence? Frankly, those wear rates are poor, to say the least.

Most importantly, the GT500 motor seen in your link is a glorified modular 5.4 engine; it's not a 5.0 Coy. Which indicates that your "proof" on the topic of this thread isn't even relevant to the engine of this UOA in this thread. A very sloppy attempt on your part to redirect the topic, and basically worthless to the direct topic (the Coy 5.0).


According to my UOA records (which are just barely cresting over the needed minimum limit) for the Coy 5.0, I see that the avg ppm / 1k miles is 1.8 for Fe, which is the greatest indicator of cumulative wear. As for the Al, Cr and Pb, they are low enough to be low sub-integer. The Cu is around .5ppm. The sigmas for my data are moderate at this point, and will likely walk down a bit as more data comes in. All that in mind, this UOA thread post is very "normal" (as I've said many times before in this thread). There is NOTHING unique about the data stream for this load of Amsoil in this thread. Most of my data is based upon MC 5w-20 semi-syn for the Coy 5.0, and yet those data points are no better or worse than this UOA. IOW - a group II+/III is doing every bit of the same job that this Amsoil did, for the duration shown. I fully admit the 5.0 COY motor is new enough that there is not a large amount of data in consice, convenient locations yet; I've had to search them out, and therefore some of the lab testing variability in inhert in my initial data. But, at least my data is DIRECTLY related to the topic at hand, and not some ham-fisted link to a completely different motor ....


But hey - why let facts and data get in the way of mythology and rhetoric?
Why make fair comparisons when you can divert to a separate topic, do no homework, and call it a "checkmate"?

If you have REAL data (past the work I've already had to do for you) that supports your position in relation this THIS topic, feel free to re-engage the debate.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I have never worked for any lube company.


Dave, as you work for XOM, you should definitely be pushing synthetic Mobil 1 more. As an employee of that organization, you should realize that they lead the synthetic market, not the conventional market here in NA.

Now, to serious mode. People should pay attention to your point about different engines in similar cars. That's not even getting into engines from the same family with totally different oil specifications in the first place.

 

[JAG]

Dave, even if you made posts that are brilliant while also being as offensive as you have, it would still be obnoxious. The UOA thread was was active a few hours ago is gone. Did you delete it?

 

[WANG]

I don't see why anyone is getting so heated over any of this, and especially getting heated over DNewton's comments.

The oil did fine, and wasn't used up yet. DNewton wants to point out that the oil could have gone further, or a "lesser" product could have been used for the same duty cycle/engine, with the same result. No Big Deal, he's just sharing his assessment.

The OP took the time out of his life to share the UOA with the world. No Big Deal, he's sharing his data, and surely that is appreciated, yeah? I know that I appreciate it.

OP, you may want to reset your trip meter, and put a voice recorder in the door of the Mustang before that stealership visit, lol.

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: JAG
Dave, even if you made posts that are brilliant while also being as offensive as you have, it would still be obnoxious. The UOA thread was was active a few hours ago is gone. Did you delete it?


We don't delete threads or posts as a matter of shifting any discussion nor as an attempt to persuade/dissuade topics. If they violate our board rules, we move them to a private forum as historical evidence, out of the public view. The only other reason we would intervene is if the OP requested it for some manner of desire (error in post, error of post, etc). In the matter to which you refer, the OP wanted his thread removed; he was accomodated, but I did not do it.

 

[Slick17601]

I had the thread removed because I felt Dnewton3s comments were a personal attack.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: Unleashedbeast
Give me your BEST conventional over the counter lubricant, in the same engine, driven the same way, for the same mileage. Your "cheap" dino lube wont even come close. Keep preaching your "conventional oils are just as good price versus mileage" comparison. You are so wrong.

I am certainly not here to argue or insult, but I have been running a little experiment of my own (conventional versus synthetic) and thus far my data supports the fact that your thoughts do not fully pan out. I have used Pennzoil Ultra (arguably Pennzoil's "best" synthetic) for the first 70K miles in my 2010 FX4 (which has a modular engine) and then switched to Mobil Super 5000 (a middle of the road conventional) and the UOA results thus far have been fairly equal. The next UOA will have 8K miles on it (which may be the limit of the TBN) and therefore PU would have to be used for 20,000 miles to be cost effective as it is 2.5x more expensive. Was the synthetic "better"? I would challenge how is it better? The UOA results are very similar--see for yourself:

Code:
Year: 2010 Make: Ford Model: F-150 FX4

Engine: 5.4L FFV Transmission: 6R80 Axle: 9.75 Ford ELD (3.73)



-

CONVENTIONAL > SYNTHETIC

|

|

Date: 08/12 06/12 | 05/12 02/12 11/11 09/11 07/11 06/11 05/11 03/11 02/11 01/11 10/10 9/10

Oil Brand/Type: MS5K MS5K | PU PU PU PU PU PU PU PU PU PU PU MC

Oil Viscosity: 5W-20 5W-20 | 5W-20 5W-20 5W-20 5W-20 5W-20 5W-20 5W-20 5W-20 5W-20 5W-20 5W-20 5W-20

API Service: SN SN | SM{A} SM SM SM SM SM SM SM SM SM SM SM

Oil Filter: MC MC | MC MC MC MC MC MC MC MC MC MC MC MC

Air Filter: NG NG | NG{B} MC MC MC MC MC{B} MC MC MC MC MC MC

Lab: BLKST BLKST | BLKST BLKST BLKST BLKST BLKST BLKST BLKST BLKST BLKST BLKST BLKST BLKST

|

|

Truck Mileage: 80,927 74,447 | 69,305 62,055 54,575 47,075 39,770 32,280 27,100 21,600 16,600 10,600 4,500 991

Oil Mileage: 6,480 5,142 | 7,250 7,480 7,500 7,305 7,490 5,180 5,500 5,000 6,000 6,100 3,509 991

|

Aluminum: 2 2 | 3 3 5 3 2 2 3 3 6 3 3 3

Chromium 1 1 | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0

Iron: 10 10 | 11 8 13 8 9 7 9 10 18 13 10 18

Copper: 2 1 | 2 1 2 2 2 2 3 4 4 5 9 41

Lead: 0 1 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

Tin: 4 0 | 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Molybdenum: 3 11 | 48 56 46 47 58 55 54 45 47 52 48 42

Nickel: 1 0 | 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Manganese: 1 0 | 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 10

Silver: 0 0 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Titanium: 30 24 | 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

Potassium: 4 2 | 6 0 6 5 1 0 2 3 4 2 3 14

Boron: 7 9 | 91 249 156 144 156 233 244 230 249 278 258 272

Silicon: 11 12 | 13 11 16 19 21 19 19 17 16 29 45 111

Sodium: 374 284 | 4 4 7 5 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 9

Calcium: 1954 2195 | 2647 3168 3003 3053 2941 2900 2814 2613 2740 2911 2706 2203

Magnesium: 12 15 | 17 15 17 17 16 12 12 11 12 12 12 14

Phosphorus: 624 655 | 688 728 671 668 710 713 676 608 629 691 643 773

Zinc: 738 765 | 762 820 724 743 861 834 813 675 718 774 752 835

Barium: 0 0 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 16

|

cSt Visc. @ 100°C (UOA) 8.05 7.73 | 8.34 8.25 7.93 7.80 8.45 8.04 8.14 8.21 8.12 7.72 7.94 7.09

|

VOA MS5K cSt Visc. @ 100°C 7.48 7.48 | --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

MOBIL cSt Visc. @ 100°C 8.4 8.4 | --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

|

VOA PU cSt Visc. @ 100°C --- --- | 7.62 7.62 7.62 7.62 7.62 7.62 7.62 7.62 7.62 7.62 7.62 ---

SOPUS cSt Visc. @ 100°C --- --- | 8.41 8.41 8.41 8.41 8.41 8.41 8.41 8.41 8.41 8.41 8.41 ---

|

SUS Viscosity @ 210°F 52.6 51.5 | 53.5 53.2 52.2 51.7 53.9 52.5 52.9 53.1 52.8 51.5 52.2 49.4

Flashpoint in °F 390 {C} | 415 405 420 415 410 425 405 390 410 390 400 390

MOBIL Flashpoint in °F 446 446 | --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

SOPUS Flashpoint in °F --- --- | 435 435 435 435 435 435 435 435 435 435 435 ---

|

Fuel %
Antifreeze % 0.0 0.0 | 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Water %
Insolubles % 0.2 0.1 | 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1

TBN 2.6 3.7 | --- --- --- 5.4 --- --- 5.6 4.8 5.3 9.4 7.5 ---

TAN 4.3 --- | --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

|

|

CONVENTIONAL > SYNTHETIC

-



NOTES:



Acronyms:



BLKST=Blackstone | MS5K=Mobil | PU=Pennzoil





{A} Possibly SN in SM bottle; note drop in Calcium

{B} Air filter change; MC=Motorcraft, NG=Napa Gold

{C} Blackstone spilled sample; not enough to test FP and Fuel%

 

[JAG]

Thank you for the explanation, Dave. I apologize for coming down hard on you. I do appreciate you sharing your knowledge here.

 

[Slick17601]

Exactly my point 10cent.


Newton, As I've mentioned before... I pay very little for Amsoil. I'd actually be paying more to buy dino than I do this. It seems very logical to me that I go ahead and continue using Amsoil. Does it protect my engine? Yes. Does it hold up well to my driving habits? Yes. Am I changing it out when I'm comfortable changing it? Yes. Do I care that it could potentially last 2x what I've put on it? No.

Did I ask someone on a strict budget to use this UOA as a basis for what they buy? No. Do I care? No. I had this UOA performed so I'd have the information on MY engine on hand for my purposes.


Do you go on everyone elses UOA and b**** that they aren't pushing their oil to the very end of it's service life? No. So why are you doing it here?

Also can you not read? I already mentioned that the only reason I changed it out so soon is because I'm taking it in soon for warranty work and want ZERO issues from the service dept about running any oil other than spec'd. I don't think it's getting through to you that I would've ran this oil longer if I wasn't going to be taking the vehicle in soon for warranty work. [/quote

This is the exact reason I had my post removed. It's time Dnewton3 is called out for his personal attacks. If he has me banned from the board so be it.

 

[buster]

Mobil did a severe test recreating the worst possible severe service. A car was driven over a period of 62 months with 2 trips per day 3 miles for 3800 miles, then 2 trips per day for 1.5 miles for 3200 miles.

Fuel dilution ranged from 5% to 11% from summer to winter. Wear metals were good up to 12 months then there is a slight increase, then at 30 months the iron in UOA samples go up to around 600 ppm.

I thought that was interesting...

Amsoil is an excellent oil, but there are also many others. IMO, unless you are going well beyond 10-12k miles, Amsoil SS is not worth it. There are to many other top tier options now - Ultra, QS UD, PP, Synpower, Mobil 1.

OE and XL are very price competitive and great products.

In terms of wear, take a look at Pennzoil and Valvoline. Valvoline's conventional oils far exceed API SN. Ultra & Mobil 1 do exceptionally well in the Sequence IIIG and IVA. Those are things you want to look for in a motor oil. Specifications too.

Misleading graph, I know...still makes the point.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: buster
In terms of wear, take a look at Pennzoil and Valvoline. Valvoline's conventional oils far exceed API SN.


And we've seen plenty of good UOAs from Valvoline products, with few complaints about the cost of the stuff.

 

[dnewton3]

Interesting graph; has little meaning though. Typical marketing manure. Where is the scale that indicates relative performance? Are we to presume the VWB is the product contrasted to the SN standard? Are we to presume that the Valvoline product performs to twice the standard, because of the approximate 2x visual scale in the graph?

What I would accpet is that all the major brands (PZ, Mobil, Valv, Castrol, etc) outperform the standards.

And, as the iterations pass, the standards get "better" (more sludge control, reduced wear, vis retention, etc).

Hence, if the API standards are getting ever "better", and the major brand offerings are "better" than the API standards, then why to people still OCI so darn often?

Wear rates actually drop the longer the oil is in use; it's proven. Most OEMs set an OCI as a preventative measure against worst-case scenario, yet few if any vehicles ever get nearly that bad. The excessive OCIs cost the OEM nothing; they don't pay for oil changes. They only worry about warranty, so the frequency of OCI is in their favor.

 

[Garak]

Don't you remember, Dave? It's 8x better wear protection, right?

Or was that SynPower?

 

[10cent]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Interesting graph; has little meaning though.

Hence, if the API standards are getting ever "better", and the major brand offerings are "better" than the API standards, then why to people still OCI so darn often?

Wear rates actually drop the longer the oil is in use; it's proven. Most OEMs set an OCI as a preventative measure against worst-case scenario, yet few if any vehicles ever get nearly that bad. The excessive OCIs cost the OEM nothing; they don't pay for oil changes. They only worry about warranty, so the frequency of OCI is in their favor.



I'm pretty sure there are more than a few BMW and Honda owners who will argue with you about this. Both have had issues with sludge when following the manufacturer oil and OCI recommendations.

Automobile manufacturers are in a very competitive market in the US and strive to be "best in class" in as many categories as possible. One of these categories is "cost of ownership" which will include manufacturer recommended OCI. If they recommend a longer OCI it will lower the cost of ownership. Some manufacturers absolutely can and will recommend the longest possible OCI to obtain a lower cost of ownership. If they only warranty the vehicle to 60k then they will never have to deal with the sludge issues a 10k dino oci will produce over 100k miles.

You are basing your argument for extended drain intervals and the death of synthetics on incomplete data and you are fixating on "wear" rates instead of the whole picture. I would trade one or twenty PPM of iron over an OCI to have a sludge free engine. In my experience sludge kills engines exceedingly more often than any other oil related issue.

I'm not arguing your initial point that most people change their oil too often and don't see the benefit in the synthetics they spend their money on. I agree with that point (though I think people can make their own decisions and not be berated about it) however I disagree with your assessment that manufacturers recommend short drain intervals to protect themselves and your fixation on wear instead of the complete picture when considering the level of protection provided by an oil.

 

[dnewton3]

I'm not advocating for the "death of synthetics". Hope that doesn't happen; I use them in some applications with great satisfaction.

Yes - I would agree that cost of ownership is very broadly based.

There are certain applications where higher-performing fluids are a good idea, or where lower OCI intervals can negate issues.

However, those are the exception, rather than the rule.

 

[10cent]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I'm not advocating for the "death of synthetics". Hope that doesn't happen; I use them in some applications with great satisfaction.

Yes - I would agree that cost of ownership is very broadly based.

There are certain applications where higher-performing fluids are a good idea, or where lower OCI intervals can negate issues.

However, those are the exception, rather than the rule.




On what evidence do you base your assertion that this is the exception and not the rule? Certainly you aren't implying that a Honda Ridgeline or Toyota Highlander are somehow exotic and outside the range of what you might encounter on a daily basis? There are many owners of those vehicles as well as Audi, Volkswagen, Mercedes, BMW, etc, that have significant sludge issues after following the manufacturer recommendations in regard to both oil and oil change interval. In fact in 2010 VAG settled a class action law suit regarding sludge causing damage to over 480,000 vehicles.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Honda+3.5l+sludge+issues

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=BMW+sludge+issues

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Volkswagen+sludge+issues

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Mercedes+Sludge+issues

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Toyota+Sludge+Issues

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Audi+Sludge+Issues

What we see in common here (with the exception of BMW and Mercedes) are relatively small displacement motors with a high relative power density with small oil capacities.

You say you aren't against synthetic in the right application but I have seen many posts from you on various UOA's in which you demean anyone using synthetics and not running things to the ragged edge. Wouldn't you say that the "right application" would be one in which, when running an extended change interval such as those recommended by many/most of today's manufacturers, a dino would cause a sludge issue over the long run? Should we not consider that wear metals are not the only factor in engine longevity? My intention isn't to bash dino at all but to offer some food for thought for the less informed or casual reader who may happen upon this information in the hopes that they will research for themselves and make their own decisions.

 

[dnewton3]

I don't see true sludging issues as oil related; they are equipment related. OCIs are a way to mitigate the sludging; that is true of any situation.

Any lubricant, regardless of base stock, can either be over or under utilized. Even a syn can sludge if left in too long. Few if any dinos would sludge if given very short OCIs.

Do not confuse the base stock with a need to understand one's unique engine characteristics and surrounding maintenance plan.

Do I challenge people? Yes. Often. What's wrong with that? Are you suggesting that I should sit idley by and not say anything when data and facts would prove otherwise? Just because someone has a right to do something, does not make it "right" to do so.

I have NEVER told someone to run to the "ragged edge". I have always stipulated to research and set reasonable condemnation levels, and then monitor conditions as they progress through a UOA series. Please do not put words in my mouth that I never spoke. It is that very problem I take issue with; what you call "ragged edge" I call "well researched and implemented". I would NEVER run my equipment out the edge for the sake of squeezing three cents more value out of it. But then again, I don't throw away perfectly good product when it's only 50% consumed, either ...

The irony is that most folks blindly follow OEM OCIs with no loss of sleep (even though there is assurance they are right or wrong), and yet panic over the thought of pushing out ANY OCI. And they will double down with synthetics in the OEM OCI, in some vain and uninformed belief that it's "better" (for the engine). It may be "better" for their peace of mind; I'll grant you that. Bur rarely is it better for the engine, tranny, etc. unless it was SPECFICALLY REQUIRED by the OEM. And even then, the specific application would have to be taken into account. A perfect example of this would be the use of M1 in a Corvette. When used under demanding conditions (and the Corvette is certainly designed for race/near-race applications and capable of outstanding performance when driven H-A-R-D), then the oil temp can be an issue. So GM spec'd M1 for that app. But does that mean when I see an old man or woman pulling out of Target mall on Sunday in their garage queen that sees 3k miles a year, and never gets above the speed limit, they "need" synthetic because it's factory fill? Puh-Leeze ...




In my forthcoming article, I discuess these issues. And I acknowledge that wear rates are but one of MANY OCI criteria one should consider. UOAs are a tool, and to get the most benefit from one, you really have to understand how to use them correctly. When all other criteria are in control, OCIs can be extended WAY past where most folks are comfortable.

 

[10cent]

So your theory is that Volkswagen, Audi, BMW, Honda, Toyota, etc, are producing faulty engines that are creating sludge and not that the oil is simply being run too long? I'm not implying that synthetic cannot sludge but the stability of the synthetic oil and its ability to resist breaking down and creating sludge is exactly what allows it to be run longer. In my opinion it is exceedingly obvious that one could benefit from the use of synthetic in an application where a manufacturer recommends a certain OCI that has resulted in significantly sludged engines when using dino.

This idea that dino protects as well as synthetic is based on an incomplete understanding of what constitutes protection in an engine. Metal wear is one (in my opinion very small) facet of protection in an engine and one that dino does indeed perform very well. Dino cannot however compete with synthetic in terms of stability and engine cleanliness which I think, in an engine that is intended to remain in service, is key.

In this situation you and I don't necessarily disagree we just do not agree on how to establish what OCI would be acceptable for dino and what would be acceptable for synthetic. I see adequate data to support my opinion that in todays modern engines with smaller displacements and higher horsepower densities a small sump of dino does not provide the resistance to breakdown over a 7,500 OCI that I would be comfortable with. Perhaps this is a moot point as the average new car buyer will never keep the vehicle to 100k, much less beyond that.