2008 Duramax LMM Amsoil Premium Diesel Oil 5W40

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: Toptierpao
I used to use Blackstone as well for our cars and commercial equipment, but, switched as their numbers were all over the place and all trust was lost. Their equipment is also out of date among other things.
Really? What equipment would that be? Please be specific in your acusation.
Maybe you want to read this first: https://bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis-2/ Please point out the antiquated machines and processes in their work environment.

Dave - I have three comments about Blackstone but will preface my comments with UNLESS SOMETHING HAS CHANGED:

1. Blackstone is not ISO certified and posts none of its certifications (if it has any) on its website. While that in and of itself is not a problem it can mean that standardized and repeatable processes are not in use nor are those processes audited by an independent third party. Other labs are quite happy to post all of the certifications they hold as well as all of the ASTM methodologies used and not just a few.

2. Blackstone has issues with fuel dilution in the methodology they use to measure it. Do they use gas chromatography? I seem to recall is a "low tech" method.

3. Blackstone has issues with soot in the methodology they use to measure it. Unless I am misreading it, the ASTM method they use (assuming they are using the same test for soot as they do for insolubles since they do not differentiate) has been deprecated so either they are using an outdated standard or they have not updated their testing methods on their website. Either of these conditions lends creedence to the first point.

Now, again I will say that if any or all of these issues have been sorted, I retract my statements and will be quite happy to be updated with new information.



I don't necessarily disagree; I would counter with a few details ...

1) They are not ISO certified that I know of. It would bolster their credibility, but they choose not to. That does not mean they are not good at what they do. They just don't audit (self-audit or outside confirmation) or have detailed written quality control plans that I'm aware of. But we cannot say because the certs are absent, means they don't operate at a decent level. It's an important distinction. Not unlike Amsoil choosing not to get API certs on some of it's engine lubes, or the fact that Amsoil does not seek out Allison certification on it's ATD fluid, although they advertise it as applicable to TES-295 applications. Schaeffers does not seek out the license for their TES-295 clone either, but they offer their 204S-AT for the same application. And yet most folks accept these products despite a lack of credentials! My point? Having a credential assures a set minimum level of performance, but a lack of such credential does NOT assure a lack of performance. Products and services can still be good without the accreditation.

2) The FP method they use is HIGHLY dependent upon the test personnel being at the right place at the EXACT right time, to visually notice the flame flash at it's first establishment. With the way they do it (at least when I was there) there exists a chance for them to miss that first flash (as they are multi-taking with other tests simultaneously).

3) Blackstone does not do soot or oxidation. I describe what they do in my article. In a nutshell, the dilute a sample, spin in a centrifuge, and then compare/contrast the result of "insolubles" visually to a staged set of incremental samples. There is some amount of variation due to a visual cue (versus quantifiable objective details), and variation from person to person. Essentially, the gage R&R on this is probably not stellar due to so much human interaction.



I'm not totally defending Blackstone in terms of what they do or do not do. I have a friendly relationship with Ryan, and appreciate their family business. I have worked with them in collaboration of my two articles, but never FOR them (never been paid by them). But, I'm not above calling out opportunities for improvement; I would like to see them improve some of their ops and develop credentials. But just because they are not "perfect" or exactly the same as other services, does not mean they are totally worthless or that all information they have is bad. And it's not like we've not seen mistakes from other labs in UOAs as well ... Nothing in the world is perfect. The better one understands the benefits and limitations of the tools they use, the more you'll be able to understand the results in terms of applicability. Could they improve their credibility by improving some processes? Yes! But are they worthless or unbelievable on every level? No way! In particular, the info I crave most (elemental analysis via ICP) is very well controlled at their facility, despite a lack of certificate on the front door. I just realize that the FP and insols are not going to be hyper-accurate. But because those are lube inputs, and not wear outputs, I don't pay as much attention to them. (Most of you know I profess outputs as a FAR more important thing to track, then lube inputs).

More importantly, I was challenging ToptierPAO to give a reason(s) as to why he made that undefined comment. If one is going to make such a statement, by gosh back it up with a rational list of credible complaints based on facts, not a drive-by assault. Here's what he said:
"I used to use Blackstone as well for our cars and commercial equipment, but, switched as their numbers were all over the place and all trust was lost. Their equipment is also out of date among other things ...
I wanted to hear about what numbers were "all over the place" and what "equipment is out of date".
Most of their processes are very well controlled, but I do admit that FP and insols have a human element that can be affected by subjective inputs.
Much of their equipment is older, but old equipment does not = bad equipment. If it's well maintained, it does just fine. And their ICP machine was fairly new when I saw it, and they were able to produce calibration statemnents from an outside ISO company regarding that piece of equipment. Whereas their lab may not be ISO accredited, much of what they use is, or the calibration services they employ from 3rd party entities are.

He's big on vague accusations, and broad comments about why syns are so much better than dinos. I'm challenging him to be more critical of his position and PROVE things with detailed information and rational debate, not conjecture and mythology. IMO he's either drunk with PAO Koolaide, or an Amsoil dealer. Nothing wrong with that, but at least admit it. We have way too much information available to us to believe what he's professing; that PAOs (and Amsoil in particular, even over Mobil 1) are always better for all applications and that no dino will ever do a job as well as a PAO. I call bovine manure on that.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I don't necessarily disagree; I would counter with a few details ...

1) They are not ISO certified that I know of. It would bolster their credibility, but they choose not to. That does not mean they are not good at what they do. They just don't audit (self-audit or outside confirmation) or have detailed written quality control plans that I'm aware of. But we cannot say because the certs are absent, means they don't operate at a decent level. It's an important distinction. Not unlike Amsoil choosing not to get API certs on some of it's engine lubes, or the fact that Amsoil does not seek out Allison certification on it's ATD fluid, although they advertise it as applicable to TES-295 applications. Schaeffers does not seek out the license for their TES-295 clone either, but they offer their 204S-AT for the same application. And yet most folks accept these products despite a lack of credentials! My point? Having a credential assures a set minimum level of performance, but a lack of such credential does NOT assure a lack of performance. Products and services can still be good without the accreditation.
I agree that not being ISO certified in 2017 does not automatically mean they have poor quality, but Blackstone is competing in a highly commoditized space and as such they need an "edge" to help separate them from their competition and presently they do not have it. In fact, when cost of the UOA at Blackstone is considered versus other ISO certified and current multi-ASTM process labs, it is a "fail". To be sure, I spent a LOT of money at Blackstone in the past--more than most can profess on this site, so I believe I have some skin in the game to be able to make such a comment.

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
2) The FP method they use is HIGHLY dependent upon the test personnel being at the right place at the EXACT right time, to visually notice the flame flash at it's first establishment. With the way they do it (at least when I was there) there exists a chance for them to miss that first flash (as they are multi-taking with other tests simultaneously).
This is a big problem. It suggests that not only are test results subjective, they are not repeatable nor are they controlled if "there exists a chance for them to miss that first flash (as they are multi-taking with other tests simultaneously)". This could be the reason that people embellish a little by saying "their numbers are all over the place".

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
3) Blackstone does not do soot or oxidation. I describe what they do in my article. In a nutshell, the dilute a sample, spin in a centrifuge, and then compare/contrast the result of "insolubles" visually to a staged set of incremental samples. There is some amount of variation due to a visual cue (versus quantifiable objective details), and variation from person to person. Essentially, the gage R&R on this is probably not stellar due to so much human interaction.
Again, in my opinion, this test is too subjective and the results are not repeatable. Therefore, I will not call it worthless, but I will say the value is very low.

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I'm not totally defending Blackstone in terms of what they do or do not do. I have a friendly relationship with Ryan, and appreciate their family business. I have worked with them in collaboration of my two articles, but never FOR them (never been paid by them). But, I'm not above calling out opportunities for improvement; I would like to see them improve some of their ops and develop credentials. But just because they are not "perfect" or exactly the same as other services, does not mean they are totally worthless or that all information they have is bad. And it's not like we've not seen mistakes from other labs in UOAs as well ... Nothing in the world is perfect. The better one understands the benefits and limitations of the tools they use, the more you'll be able to understand the results in terms of applicability. Could they improve their credibility by improving some processes? Yes! But are they worthless or unbelievable on every level? No way! In particular, the info I crave most (elemental analysis via ICP) is very well controlled at their facility, despite a lack of certificate on the front door.
As I said, I have spent more at Blackstone than most on this site and I am all for supporting family businesses, but the value and quality have to be there and for me, with Blackstone for my Powerstroke it is not.


Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I just realize that the FP and insols are not going to be hyper-accurate. But because those are lube inputs, and not wear outputs, I don't pay as much attention to them. (Most of you know I profess outputs as a FAR more important thing to track, then lube inputs).
As someone with a post-2007 diesel, I pay a great deal of attention to fuel dilution and soot and want my test results to be as accurate as possible. My issues with fuel dilution may or may not have been accurately tracked with Blackstone--I cannot say, but I know the results from my current lab are accurate due to the testing methodologies they use. Are they infallible? No, as you state, no lab is perfect. However, I place confidence in ISO certifications, third party audits, and appropriate ASTM methodologies for the tests required. When I look at the full picture and factor in the cost, Blackstone is no longer a choice for me.
 
I would wager my paycheck that toptierpao is an Amsoil distibutor. That way he won't "overpay" for his precious syn compared to those that by retail. I wonder if he's aware that Amsoil buys their base stock from Exxon/Mobil?

Keep up the good work Dave!
 
Originally Posted By: BoiseRob
I wonder if he's aware that Amsoil buys their base stock from Exxon/Mobil?


Actually Amsoil buys a few a basestocks from XOM. But certainly not all or most.
 
Originally Posted By: Toptierpao
It is not a pickup truck,it’s a 4500 series truck which takes just under 15 quarts stock. The extra oil lines,full flow filter which is larger than stock and the bypass filter adds 3 quarts.

We obviously disagree and there is no harm in that. Dino oils contain wax which will crystallize in cold weather and they will never protect in high heat/high temp conditions compared to a good Group III oil,let alone a PAO/Ester based Group IV/Group V oil.

With a turbocharger spinning 100,000 plus rpms with temps well north of 500 degrees, dino oil cannot make the grade. Slowly,little by little, the turbo shaft will varnish and coke up creating more heat. The same thing will happen to rings and pistons. Over time performance will diminish,deposits will build,timing chains will under perform, fuel mileage goes down and more.
Now add fuel dilution into the mix,in my case a ridiculous 6 plus percent. The oil starting as a 40 grade is now somewhere in the 30’s. The extremely hot turbo thins the oil further.Do you want a 20 something weight oil running thru the precious turbo? Keep this up and over time,it will surely fail.

The Amsoil SS line of oils contain expensive esters. They are super lubricating adhering to metal internals forming a tough layer of protection. Between that and the base stock ,it has proven to be a tough very shear stable oil. Todays diesels are complicated expensive marvels of engineering. Oil is cheap in comparison and the better oils will provide longevity and a cleaner more efficient running engine over its lifetime .

I guess all the otr trucks running Delo 400, Delvac 1300 and Rotella really don't run a million+ miles. It seems that marketing works wonders.
 
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: Toptierpao
I used to use Blackstone as well for our cars and commercial equipment, but, switched as their numbers were all over the place and all trust was lost. Their equipment is also out of date among other things.
Really? What equipment would that be? Please be specific in your acusation.
Maybe you want to read this first: https://bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis-2/ Please point out the antiquated machines and processes in their work environment.

Dave - I have three comments about Blackstone but will preface my comments with UNLESS SOMETHING HAS CHANGED:

1. Blackstone is not ISO certified and posts none of its certifications (if it has any) on its website. While that in and of itself is not a problem it can mean that standardized and repeatable processes are not in use nor are those processes audited by an independent third party. Other labs are quite happy to post all of the certifications they hold as well as all of the ASTM methodologies used and not just a few.

2. Blackstone has issues with fuel dilution in the methodology they use to measure it. Do they use gas chromatography? I seem to recall is a "low tech" method.

3. Blackstone has issues with soot in the methodology they use to measure it. Unless I am misreading it, the ASTM method they use (assuming they are using the same test for soot as they do for insolubles since they do not differentiate) has been deprecated so either they are using an outdated standard or they have not updated their testing methods on their website. Either of these conditions lends creedence to the first point.

Now, again I will say that if any or all of these issues have been sorted, I retract my statements and will be quite happy to be updated with new information.



I don't necessarily disagree; I would counter with a few details ...

1) They are not ISO certified that I know of. It would bolster their credibility, but they choose not to. That does not mean they are not good at what they do. They just don't audit (self-audit or outside confirmation) or have detailed written quality control plans that I'm aware of. But we cannot say because the certs are absent, means they don't operate at a decent level. It's an important distinction. Not unlike Amsoil choosing not to get API certs on some of it's engine lubes, or the fact that Amsoil does not seek out Allison certification on it's ATD fluid, although they advertise it as applicable to TES-295 applications. Schaeffers does not seek out the license for their TES-295 clone either, but they offer their 204S-AT for the same application. And yet most folks accept these products despite a lack of credentials! My point? Having a credential assures a set minimum level of performance, but a lack of such credential does NOT assure a lack of performance. Products and services can still be good without the accreditation.

2) The FP method they use is HIGHLY dependent upon the test personnel being at the right place at the EXACT right time, to visually notice the flame flash at it's first establishment. With the way they do it (at least when I was there) there exists a chance for them to miss that first flash (as they are multi-taking with other tests simultaneously).

3) Blackstone does not do soot or oxidation. I describe what they do in my article. In a nutshell, the dilute a sample, spin in a centrifuge, and then compare/contrast the result of "insolubles" visually to a staged set of incremental samples. There is some amount of variation due to a visual cue (versus quantifiable objective details), and variation from person to person. Essentially, the gage R&R on this is probably not stellar due to so much human interaction.



I'm not totally defending Blackstone in terms of what they do or do not do. I have a friendly relationship with Ryan, and appreciate their family business. I have worked with them in collaboration of my two articles, but never FOR them (never been paid by them). But, I'm not above calling out opportunities for improvement; I would like to see them improve some of their ops and develop credentials. But just because they are not "perfect" or exactly the same as other services, does not mean they are totally worthless or that all information they have is bad. And it's not like we've not seen mistakes from other labs in UOAs as well ... Nothing in the world is perfect. The better one understands the benefits and limitations of the tools they use, the more you'll be able to understand the results in terms of applicability. Could they improve their credibility by improving some processes? Yes! But are they worthless or unbelievable on every level? No way! In particular, the info I crave most (elemental analysis via ICP) is very well controlled at their facility, despite a lack of certificate on the front door. I just realize that the FP and insols are not going to be hyper-accurate. But because those are lube inputs, and not wear outputs, I don't pay as much attention to them. (Most of you know I profess outputs as a FAR more important thing to track, then lube inputs).

More importantly, I was challenging ToptierPAO to give a reason(s) as to why he made that undefined comment. If one is going to make such a statement, by gosh back it up with a rational list of credible complaints based on facts, not a drive-by assault. Here's what he said:
"I used to use Blackstone as well for our cars and commercial equipment, but, switched as their numbers were all over the place and all trust was lost. Their equipment is also out of date among other things ...
I wanted to hear about what numbers were "all over the place" and what "equipment is out of date".
Most of their processes are very well controlled, but I do admit that FP and insols have a human element that can be affected by subjective inputs.
Much of their equipment is older, but old equipment does not = bad equipment. If it's well maintained, it does just fine. And their ICP machine was fairly new when I saw it, and they were able to produce calibration statemnents from an outside ISO company regarding that piece of equipment. Whereas their lab may not be ISO accredited, much of what they use is, or the calibration services they employ from 3rd party entities are.

He's big on vague accusations, and broad comments about why syns are so much better than dinos. I'm challenging him to be more critical of his position and PROVE things with detailed information and rational debate, not conjecture and mythology. IMO he's either drunk with PAO Koolaide, or an Amsoil dealer. Nothing wrong with that, but at least admit it. We have way too much information available to us to believe what he's professing; that PAOs (and Amsoil in particular, even over Mobil 1) are always better for all applications and that no dino will ever do a job as well as a PAO. I call bovine manure on that.


You're like Blackstone, you seem to sum up a lot of things to just a certificate. ISO 9001 is a certificate, ISO17025 is an actual legitimate certification that is not just paper. It's VERY tough to pass ISO17025. Analabs not long ago lost their 17025.
 
2015_PSD you are on the money!!!!!!!!!!!

I've been trying to tell people for a while now, you CAN find ISO labs, doing ICP + FTIR + Vis. 40 + GC for $25. and good labs too.
 
I'll tread carefully here as I don't want to get caught in the crossfire here because I'm not well educated enough on certificates and the like to defend myself. However, I do believe that there is some benefit to using synthetics versus dino oil. While I'm not skilled enough to pursue my own tests to prove this, I (like most, I'd imagine) rely on the findings of others. In this case, I would agree with AAA's findings on dino vs. synthetics where they found synthetics provided greater wear protection than their dino counterparts. Here's the link for those curious.

Now, excuse me as I duck and bow out of this.
07.gif
 
I am a dealer which should have no bearing on this thread. I am not forcing Amsoil down any ones throat and never stated that it was the Holy Grail of oils. I stated “the levels of protection that a higher end oil such as Amsoil provides is in a whole other class compared to dino. There is just no comparison.” I stand by that. I also referenced other good oils, in another post all of which will outperform conventional oil by however which way you want to measure performance. They are all good, pick one that works for your driving style and environment.

I really did not want to comment further on Blackstone as it seems the majority of the board uses them and I suspected dnewton3 was on their payroll. 2015_PSD has now revealed in his #1 point what I was not willing to post . Whether they know it or not, they are misleading their customers with potentially erroneous reports which could lead to catastrophic engine failure in time.

For $38 you get BN ,no oxidation, and hit or miss FD. As DanielLD mentioned other labs give you more for less including GC testing. The price for this uoa was much less than the price mentioned and even if it was not less expensive, I would have left for the reasons stated.
 
Originally Posted By: danielLD
Just random points.

1. Fuel dilution is a thing that chews up the motor and creates deposits. It's not something that affects the engine instantly, it's a gradual thing.

2. Oil quality affects ring seal big time, Amsoil will seal a cylinder better than some cheap oil.

3. Oil's have to fight FD and acid. M1 is a good example as it has great acid fighting abilities and does not shear as easily to fuel dilution.

4. If you removed that DPF and EGR, your fuel dilution which thanks for getting done by GC!!!! Would drop to 1-2%.


You see those levels on these trucks in your tests?? I am sure mpg would go up as well,these trucks are dilution pigs! This truck in 2017 regenerates about every 7-8 days averaging every 275 miles and lasting for an average of 14.6 miles. I am going to strongly consider a delete next season,this level of dilution is sickening. You guys with no emissions equipment have it made.
 
Originally Posted By: BoiseRob
I would wager my paycheck that toptierpao is an Amsoil distibutor. That way he won't "overpay" for his precious syn compared to those that by retail. I wonder if he's aware that Amsoil buys their base stock from Exxon/Mobil?

Keep up the good work Dave!


Yes Rob,quite aware,they are world wide the largest producer of PAO's. They make just about everything and is one reason they do not use esters.If they can make it in house,why out source?They also buy base stock from Petro Canada. Lubrizol is another go to source. Some time ago,a train load of base stock was delivered.I guess they did not think Amsoil would check it. They did.I was not to their specs and they sent it all back.Needless to say,it only happened once.
 
Yes, they buy from Petro Canada because they were Mobil Canada back in the day so there's a long standing relationship with PC. Just like Pemex was Mobil in Mexico. As a "dealer", I would say you're biased with any/all of your comments whether you admit it or not. Your username says it all!
Schaeffer's offer free lab kits with their oils and for a couple of bucks, you can add tbn/tan to the test when you submit the sample.

On a positive note... I get to keep my paycheck!
wink.gif
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: BoiseRob
Yes, they buy from Petro Canada because they were Mobil Canada back in the day so there's a long standing relationship with PC. Just like Pemex was Mobil in Mexico. As a "dealer", I would say you're biased with any/all of your comments whether you admit it or not. Your username says it all!
Schaeffer's offer free lab kits with their oils and for a couple of bucks, you can add tbn/tan to the test when you submit the sample.

On a positive note... I get to keep my paycheck!
wink.gif



That is very judgemental of you when my posts and statements should show that I am very open and not pushing Amsoil as the ONLY oil.My user name could be meant for Mobil 1 and any other oil that uses pao's.

I use what works best for me and the conditions that they are used in,no oil I use is blindly chosen.Trial and error, survival of the fittest as the weak show their hand and are weeded out.I am not using Amsoil oil filters, Mobil 1 EP is in our Lexus SUV and it stays in there for 1 year or 10k miles max,however it is PFI and is much easier on oils. In our GDI cars,that same oil gets beat up in a shorter time. Mobil 1 AFE 0W30 in our GDI's was adequate,however in 5500-6500 oci's oil was consumed to the tune of 18 ounces in that period,on motors that both had under 20k extremely well taken care of miles. Put Amsoil in,almost doubling the oci's,and no more usage and better gas mileage by a large margin tracked and hand calculated for 10k miles,so,it is not a fluke. Mobil 1 FS 0W40 is an oil I used for its 3.6 HTHS and a 186 viscosity index.Great oil but used in very hard running equipment run at full throttle once started,it also consumed oil. I tried Delo 400 LE under the same conditions and it sucked oil like you would not believe.Problem solved when switching brands.

Below is a shot of what is currently in my shed.Am I really THAT biased as some of the posters in this thread assume.I think not.

Bottom line,use what works for you and your application.
 
Originally Posted By: Toptierpao
I have taken apart commercial equipment(not mine) run hard all day. The owner used Mobil 1,labeled full synthetic. We know its marketing and not a true synthetic. Long story short,I talked him into trying a 100% true synthetic.

Originally Posted By: Toptierpao

That is very judgemental of you when my posts and statements should show that I am very open and not pushing Amsoil as the ONLY oil.My user name could be meant for Mobil 1 and any other oil that uses pao's.


By your own admission, you aren't talking about Mobil 1....
 
Last edited:
He's not biased, but he's made these statements ...

Originally Posted By: Toptierpao

... but the levels of protection that a higher end oil such as Amsoil provides is in a whole other class compared to dino. There is just no comparison.

... The owner used Mobil 1,labeled full synthetic. We know its marketing and not a true synthetic. Long story short,I talked him into trying a 100% true synthetic.

... I know you are well aware of the answer,but,Royal Purple and Redline stick out. (in response to which oils are "full synthetic"; and he excludes Mobil 1 by choice)


And there's this ...
Originally Posted By: Toptierpao
That is very judgemental of you when my posts and statements should show that I am very open and not pushing Amsoil as the ONLY oil.My user name could be meant for Mobil 1 and any other oil that uses pao's.


Can't have your cake and eat it too, sir. You cannot say you're not against other brands, and then laud your favorite flavor you sell, and not be called on the carpet for it. You're going to find out that, unlike many of the blind sheep you may lead in your own fold, many of us here actually read/understand/analyze our way through a topic.

Is Amsoil a good brand? Yes - absolutely.
Is Amsoil the best brand? That would take a TON of field trial study data to prove. Time and money that even Amsoil is unwilling to spend.


You need to quit focusing on inputs and start focusing on real world results. Stop looking at what's inside the bottle as virgin oil, and start paying attention to the RESULTS of HOW THE LUBE ACTUALLY PERFORMS IN RELATION TO IT'S JOB - THAT OF CARING FOR THE EQUIPMENT.

You've stated this ...
Originally Posted By: Toptierpao
A UOA will not show it,but the levels of protection that a higher end oil such as Amsoil provides is in a whole other class compared to dino. There is just no comparison.

I have repeatedly asked you to expand on this statement. You continue to evade and deny.
I contend there most certainly is a tool which allows us to compare and contrast results; it's a UOA. UOAs are not perfect; they have limitations. But they are, by far and away, by any other measure, the least expensive means of getting and understanding of how well an engine is wearing. If you don't think UOAs are the tool to show how well a PAO does, then why in the world did you pay for one?

Allow me to quote myself from another thread:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Most folks here don't understand how/why to use UOAs.

They are tools. They are not perfect, but nothing is. UOAs are a great view of lubricant health; they are a direct view of lubricant conditions. UOAs are a good view of equipment health; they are an indirect view of equipment conditions. The difference being that while you can set condemnation limits for specific lubricant properties, (vis, FP, fuel dilution, TBN/TAN, etc), these do NOT, in any manner, assure you success or failure in wear protection. Just because vis may drop from shearing, wear does not automatically go up. Just because TAN crosses over TBN, wear does not automatically go up. Etc ... These characteristics are PREDICTORS of a POTENTIAL CHANGE in wear rates; they are NOT an assurance of change already occurring.

However, you can accurately track UOA wear metals, you can understand wear rates (something that Doug Hillary's article mentions, but does not explain in detail). Wear metals in a UOA are a VERY good indicator or wear. They are NOT an assurance that you'll see or detect ALL manner of wear, though. The "normal" wear that is experienced in equipment can be easily tracked. The daily grind of typical uses all around the globe can easily and accurately be tracked with UOAs. However, catastrophic and acute events that happen suddenly will never be detected by UOAs until AFTER the event happens. Further, as most here understand, UOAs are limited in that they cannot see wear particulate above a certain size (about 5um). UOAs, when used on their own, offer a limited view of wear. UOAs, when used with other tools like PCs and other observations, offer a fuller view of wear. There are times a UOA can most certainly give insight to impending doom; other times they are blind and cannot see the changes coming. Again - UOAs are not perfect, but they are not, by any measure, useless.

How else can we measure wear? Well, we can use tear-down analysis for one. Unfortunately, that's silly expensive in both time and money. When you do a "tear down" of an engine, it's usually in the manner of an autopsy; trying to discern what is "wrong" with something; why do this if nothing is suspected to be "wrong"? No one is going to be able to afford the down time and costs involved in tearing down an engine/tranny/gearbox/diff just to see how well it's wearing every 10k miles. Additionally, tear-down analysis has disadvantages past those concerns of time and money. Tear-downs induce physical changes into the system that cannot be undone. When you tear down an engine, not much changes. But when you reassemble that same engine, you alter things like bearing clearances, etc. Some fasteners which are reused will stretch and not return to the EXACT same location, thereby changing the clearances. Or, new fasteners will be used, also changing the clearances. Are you going to reuse bearings? Use new bearings? Bearing inserts likely won't be set EXACTLY in the same position; they may become skewed, etc. You see, while I do agree that a "tear down" can be used to understand wear patterns, it's not in any way a practical means of understanding daily wear in equipment. It's not practical and it's not easily repeatable. Therefore, doing one tear-down may give you insight into wear, but unless you don't plan to reuse the engine by putting it back together, it's moot. TDs are NOT a practical means of assessing wear during the life-cycle of a piece of equipment. They are a means to diagnose wear at the end of a life-cycle. Once you take something apart, putting back together alters critical relationships that affect wear. So how do you know just how much is "wear" induced by the reassembly, versus wear that is natural to the operation? Answer is .... you don't!

Tear-down analysis can be done with a several different methods. There's physical measurements with hard gauges (microns, thousandths, etc); also soft gauges can be used. There's electron bombardment techniques. There spectro-light-emission opportunities. Etc, etc. All these methods have pros and cons. Some are very difficult to attain, but are reasonably safe with gauge R&R. Others are easier to achieve, but have poor R&R scores.

There are some SAE studies that do show UOA wear particles correlate well with particulate loading. There are studies that show UOA wear data does correlate with things like electron-bombardment measurements of wear. UOAs are accurate; UOAs are not fool-proof, but nothing is. Look - there is no "perfect" way to measure wear. Anyone who says that tear-downs are the "only" way to measure wear is misleading you. TDs are a good tool, but they have flaws and traps just like UOAs.

I choose to use the technique that offers a good ROI; one which can see most of the daily wear I'm interested in tracking, and does it quickly, for a low cost. That's UOAs.

You cannot run a few UOAs on your own vehicle and think you know "wear".
You can run a few UOAs and compare/contrast to macro data.
This is the difference between micro and macro analysis ....
https://bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis-how-to-decide-what-is-normal/
There are two critical things needed to make a good UOA decision:
- the knowledge of how the data is to be viewed
- the quantity of relevant data needed to make an informed decision

Just because one can afford a few $15 UOAs, does not mean one automatically understands "wear".


As long as one understands the benefits and limitations of the tools one uses, you're in a "better" position than someone who does not understand, or even acknowledge, those differences.



PUHLLEEEEEEZZZZEEEEE read this in it's entirety:
https://bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis-how-to-decide-what-is-normal/
This exists so folks like you can begin to understand how to judge UOA results, and make solid conclusions (and more importantly, avoid tainted conclusions).
After you read it, then feel free to ask questions and contribute to the converstations.
Even if you disagree with the material in this article, at least bring a reasoned angle to the debate, and not more PAO hype.
 
Last edited:
The only issue I see in your UOA is the fuel dilution. Not uncommon for regen engines, especially if they get short tripped or idle a lot.

Unless something else changes fuel dilution is going to limit your max oil change interval, regardless of the lubricant used. Do you park the truck inside or use a block heater? Run a winter cover over the grill to aid in warm up?

The rest of the truck will probably succumb to the Vermont road salt and potholes before the engine, so I hope you are as diligent with corrosion control as you are with the engine maintenance.
 
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
He's not biased, but he's made these statements ...

Originally Posted By: Toptierpao

... but the levels of protection that a higher end oil such as Amsoil provides is in a whole other class compared to dino. There is just no comparison.

... The owner used Mobil 1,labeled full synthetic. We know its marketing and not a true synthetic. Long story short,I talked him into trying a 100% true synthetic.

... I know you are well aware of the answer,but,Royal Purple and Redline stick out. (in response to which oils are "full synthetic"; and he excludes Mobil 1 by choice)


And there's this ...
Originally Posted By: Toptierpao
That is very judgemental of you when my posts and statements should show that I am very open and not pushing Amsoil as the ONLY oil.My user name could be meant for Mobil 1 and any other oil that uses pao's.


Can't have your cake and eat it too, sir. You cannot say you're not against other brands, and then laud your favorite flavor you sell, and not be called on the carpet for it. You're going to find out that, unlike many of the blind sheep you may lead in your own fold, many of us here actually read/understand/analyze our way through a topic.

Is Amsoil a good brand? Yes - absolutely.
Is Amsoil the best brand? That would take a TON of field trial study data to prove. Time and money that even Amsoil is unwilling to spend.


You need to quit focusing on inputs and start focusing on real world results. Stop looking at what's inside the bottle as virgin oil, and start paying attention to the RESULTS of HOW THE LUBE ACTUALLY PERFORMS IN RELATION TO IT'S JOB - THAT OF CARING FOR THE EQUIPMENT.

You've stated this ...
Originally Posted By: Toptierpao
A UOA will not show it,but the levels of protection that a higher end oil such as Amsoil provides is in a whole other class compared to dino. There is just no comparison.

I have repeatedly asked you to expand on this statement. You continue to evade and deny.
I contend there most certainly is a tool which allows us to compare and contrast results; it's a UOA. UOAs are not perfect; they have limitations. But they are, by far and away, by any other measure, the least expensive means of getting and understanding of how well an engine is wearing. If you don't think UOAs are the tool to show how well a PAO does, then why in the world did you pay for one?

Allow me to quote myself from another thread:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Most folks here don't understand how/why to use UOAs.

They are tools. They are not perfect, but nothing is. UOAs are a great view of lubricant health; they are a direct view of lubricant conditions. UOAs are a good view of equipment health; they are an indirect view of equipment conditions. The difference being that while you can set condemnation limits for specific lubricant properties, (vis, FP, fuel dilution, TBN/TAN, etc), these do NOT, in any manner, assure you success or failure in wear protection. Just because vis may drop from shearing, wear does not automatically go up. Just because TAN crosses over TBN, wear does not automatically go up. Etc ... These characteristics are PREDICTORS of a POTENTIAL CHANGE in wear rates; they are NOT an assurance of change already occurring.

However, you can accurately track UOA wear metals, you can understand wear rates (something that Doug Hillary's article mentions, but does not explain in detail). Wear metals in a UOA are a VERY good indicator or wear. They are NOT an assurance that you'll see or detect ALL manner of wear, though. The "normal" wear that is experienced in equipment can be easily tracked. The daily grind of typical uses all around the globe can easily and accurately be tracked with UOAs. However, catastrophic and acute events that happen suddenly will never be detected by UOAs until AFTER the event happens. Further, as most here understand, UOAs are limited in that they cannot see wear particulate above a certain size (about 5um). UOAs, when used on their own, offer a limited view of wear. UOAs, when used with other tools like PCs and other observations, offer a fuller view of wear. There are times a UOA can most certainly give insight to impending doom; other times they are blind and cannot see the changes coming. Again - UOAs are not perfect, but they are not, by any measure, useless.

How else can we measure wear? Well, we can use tear-down analysis for one. Unfortunately, that's silly expensive in both time and money. When you do a "tear down" of an engine, it's usually in the manner of an autopsy; trying to discern what is "wrong" with something; why do this if nothing is suspected to be "wrong"? No one is going to be able to afford the down time and costs involved in tearing down an engine/tranny/gearbox/diff just to see how well it's wearing every 10k miles. Additionally, tear-down analysis has disadvantages past those concerns of time and money. Tear-downs induce physical changes into the system that cannot be undone. When you tear down an engine, not much changes. But when you reassemble that same engine, you alter things like bearing clearances, etc. Some fasteners which are reused will stretch and not return to the EXACT same location, thereby changing the clearances. Or, new fasteners will be used, also changing the clearances. Are you going to reuse bearings? Use new bearings? Bearing inserts likely won't be set EXACTLY in the same position; they may become skewed, etc. You see, while I do agree that a "tear down" can be used to understand wear patterns, it's not in any way a practical means of understanding daily wear in equipment. It's not practical and it's not easily repeatable. Therefore, doing one tear-down may give you insight into wear, but unless you don't plan to reuse the engine by putting it back together, it's moot. TDs are NOT a practical means of assessing wear during the life-cycle of a piece of equipment. They are a means to diagnose wear at the end of a life-cycle. Once you take something apart, putting back together alters critical relationships that affect wear. So how do you know just how much is "wear" induced by the reassembly, versus wear that is natural to the operation? Answer is .... you don't!

Tear-down analysis can be done with a several different methods. There's physical measurements with hard gauges (microns, thousandths, etc); also soft gauges can be used. There's electron bombardment techniques. There spectro-light-emission opportunities. Etc, etc. All these methods have pros and cons. Some are very difficult to attain, but are reasonably safe with gauge R&R. Others are easier to achieve, but have poor R&R scores.

There are some SAE studies that do show UOA wear particles correlate well with particulate loading. There are studies that show UOA wear data does correlate with things like electron-bombardment measurements of wear. UOAs are accurate; UOAs are not fool-proof, but nothing is. Look - there is no "perfect" way to measure wear. Anyone who says that tear-downs are the "only" way to measure wear is misleading you. TDs are a good tool, but they have flaws and traps just like UOAs.

I choose to use the technique that offers a good ROI; one which can see most of the daily wear I'm interested in tracking, and does it quickly, for a low cost. That's UOAs.

You cannot run a few UOAs on your own vehicle and think you know "wear".
You can run a few UOAs and compare/contrast to macro data.
This is the difference between micro and macro analysis ....
https://bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis-how-to-decide-what-is-normal/
There are two critical things needed to make a good UOA decision:
- the knowledge of how the data is to be viewed
- the quantity of relevant data needed to make an informed decision

Just because one can afford a few $15 UOAs, does not mean one automatically understands "wear".


As long as one understands the benefits and limitations of the tools one uses, you're in a "better" position than someone who does not understand, or even acknowledge, those differences.



PUHLLEEEEEEZZZZEEEEE read this in it's entirety:
https://bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis-how-to-decide-what-is-normal/
This exists so folks like you can begin to understand how to judge UOA results, and make solid conclusions (and more importantly, avoid tainted conclusions).
After you read it, then feel free to ask questions and contribute to the converstations.
Even if you disagree with the material in this article, at least bring a reasoned angle to the debate, and not more PAO hype.



Yet more jabs at my intelligence in subtle ways. I did not omit Mobil 1 intentionally as you state. From the pic I posted it is clear I have used their products and I did previously mention Mobil 1 Annual Protection as possibly being right up there with Amsoil. I also never said Amsoil was the best brand.

Lets get off of Amsoil,I am not trying to sell it here on BITOG. My problem is with conventional oil.If anyone new to oil reads this and you want superior protection, do yourself a favor and use synthetic. You want better protection? Go to a Group IV/Group V oil. How you do not get that is BEYOND me. Maybe you are getting it for free, I have no idea. Even at that, I would not use it.

I pay for uao’s because a PAO based oil still breaks down.
 
I have repeatedly asked you to have a detailed, thorough conversation regarding PAOs and conventional lubes, and discuss how real world results belie the misinformation in lube marketing. To this point, you've put absolutely nothing forward except your opinions. I'm not jabbing at your intelligence; I don't know enough about you to make any determination in that regard one way or another. I am, however, convinced now that you have put no effort into researching FACTS and DATA, rather than HYPE and RHETORIC. Due to that, I believe your knowledge is in this arena severely lacking. But knowledge is different than intelligence; one is a collection of information storage whereas the other an ability to reason and deduce accurately. I am not jabbing at your intelligence; I'm noting your apparent lack of understanding, and your unwillingness to have a real debate based on proven credible research based in real-world applications.

We will agree to disagree then.

The good news is that you don't have to listen to me at all, and your Dmax will be just fine. But not because of a PAO; it's because Dmax engines just wear well regardless of what's in the crankcase.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Rob_Roy
The only issue I see in your UOA is the fuel dilution. Not uncommon for regen engines, especially if they get short tripped or idle a lot.

Unless something else changes fuel dilution is going to limit your max oil change interval, regardless of the lubricant used. Do you park the truck inside or use a block heater? Run a winter cover over the grill to aid in warm up?

The rest of the truck will probably succumb to the Vermont road salt and potholes before the engine, so I hope you are as diligent with corrosion control as you are with the engine maintenance.


Yes Rob,the truck is short tripped pulling a trailer every day,many times,a mile or less once I reach a certain destination. It is also started 5 to 7 times per day where the oil goes from operating temperature to below operating temps.These cycles aid in beating up the oil.

Another reason for analysis on this oil at this mileage,even with bypass filtration is because I know these trucks in certain model years have dilution issues.I am not happy with all this dilution,but,I am stuck with the design the engineers have dealt to us.Not much more I can do.I alternate between two fuel additives and the air filter is changed yearly at 10,000 miles or less.Truck runs fantastic and I get the same mpg as when new.

I am told that the 6.3% FD is not constant and that the nozzles that spray oil on to the underside of the hot pistons actually vaporize some of the fuel from the engine oil. Basically,FD will vary with highest numbers at regen time..Any way you slice it,it is not good.

Truck is parked outside and the block heater is used every day,even in summer. Probably over kill,but,in September,I just replaced the original batteries after 9 years. I do not drive the truck in winter or when it snows.
 
Originally Posted By: Toptierpao
... and the air filter is changed yearly at 10,000 miles or less.

Truck is parked outside and the block heater is used every day,even in summer. .... I do not drive the truck in winter or when it snows.



Changing your air filter annually with less than 10k miles is NOT filtering the air "better". In fact, it's quite likely you'll induce a bit more wear, because the bulk of contamination passes through the filter in the earilest part of it's life-cycle. That's not my opinion; that information comes from Jim Allen, our member here and long-time automotive tech article writer, who's toured Fram and Parker filter facilities.
http://www.trailerlife.com/tech/diy/the-truth-about-engine-air-filtration/
"This is why early or overly frequent filter changes are not advised because, according to Wake, 90 percent of the lifetime amount of dirt that passes through a filter does so in the first 10 percent of use."
The Dmax comes with a vacuum based filter minder; presuming you've not discarded it for some other system, just follow it.



Let me understand this - You don't drive the truck in winter.
So you think you need a block heater and a PAO ... for starting your Dmax in summer in VT?
21.gif



Wow .... Just wow ...
crazy2.gif



.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top