3 labs test amsoil ATM 10w30 VOA

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

pb

Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
167
Location
stl
as a follow up to my original topic http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...ple#Post3461022

i've now gotten 3 results for the same jug of amsoil ATM 10w30. i did not list values
Code:
LAB MFA WIX OAI



aluminum 1 7 1

vanadium 16 1 0

silicon 1 9 4

sodium 15 6 2

potassium 1 7 0

molybdenum 129 156 167

boron 174 243 230

magnesium 70 6 14

calcium 4746 3477 3389

phosphorus 389 728 713

zinc 1581 842 784

tbn 8.7 10.9 11.7

v40C 70 60.9 n/r

v100C 11.4 9.6 10.7



cost free 18.09 17.95
 
So which one do you believe? When I see things like this it makes me wonder if a UOA is even worth it. As Quattro Pete said there's quite a difference between MFA and the two others.
 
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
So which one do you believe? When I see things like this it makes me wonder if a UOA is even worth it. As Quattro Pete said there's quite a difference between MFA and the two others.


MFA was a free service, and it's clearly evident here- results are all over the place. The other 2 lab results complement each other. I won't second guess their results in the future.

my feelings as to the validity of UOAs... i weigh the costs of knowing what's going on in the engine to the value of the oil i put in it. if i wasn't spending $xx more than supertech i'd likely not care this closely to the finer points of engine wear and optimal OCIs. [a qualified] UOA is a great tool to have available.
 
I know the value, of the UOA, my problem is the variations between labs. While the last two are close the v40c and v100c values are important. One isn't given and the v100c values are quite a bit off IMO, which could cause concern as in the case of the 9.6 vs.the 10.7 value.
 
I think it is best to not tell them what oil you used or the mileage, vehicle, miles or hours on the unit, or any makeup oil used.

Prevents them from looking up similar data or testing that was previously done and just charging you without testing your sample.

For example, I have a 2010 Honda Fit with 48,000km on the clock.

Right now, I have QSUD 5W20 in the sump.

There are about 40 people on BITOG who can "guesstimate" the wear values that would be believable just by looking at the color of the sample and knowing the above mentioned data.

If it still looks like a normal light brownish amber but still transparent, you can fake the iron and copper wear and be statistically bang on. Maybe sniff the sample quickly and see if it reeks of gas.

Especially if the samples had time to sit in a tray. Would really give the water and fuel a chance to separate. They could also see by color if it looks like chocolate milk.

A normal looking sample, visually, they probably have temptation to pull data and mail you that.

If the sample looks black, chocolatey, reeks of fuel, has visible metallic particles, maybe they would test that?

I'll save my cash and only get a UOA only if the oil looks bizarre, otherwise this is a cash grab based on the above data.
 
Originally Posted By: Falken
I think it is best to not tell them what oil you used or the mileage, vehicle, miles or hours on the unit, or any makeup oil used.

Prevents them from looking up similar data or testing that was previously done and just charging you without testing your sample.

For example, I have a 2010 Honda Fit with 48,000km on the clock.

Right now, I have QSUD 5W20 in the sump.

There are about 40 people on BITOG who can "guesstimate" the wear values that would be believable just by looking at the color of the sample and knowing the above mentioned data.

If it still looks like a normal light brownish amber but still transparent, you can fake the iron and copper wear and be statistically bang on. Maybe sniff the sample quickly and see if it reeks of gas.

Especially if the samples had time to sit in a tray. Would really give the water and fuel a chance to separate. They could also see by color if it looks like chocolate milk.

A normal looking sample, visually, they probably have temptation to pull data and mail you that.

If the sample looks black, chocolatey, reeks of fuel, has visible metallic particles, maybe they would test that?

I'll save my cash and only get a UOA only if the oil looks bizarre, otherwise this is a cash grab based on the above data.


Interesting. Certainly some good food for thought.
 
Originally Posted By: Falken
I think it is best to not tell them what oil you used or the mileage, vehicle, miles or hours on the unit, or any makeup oil used.



you and i think alike. problem i found though with OAI in 2007 was they weren't testing/ giving results for oxidation or nitration if the sample was not labeled as an amsoil product.

so, all future samples were marked as amsoil products.
 
Originally Posted By: tig1
This is just one reason I don't waste money on UOAs.


I felt that way for a long time. Then I've been on the fence about them, then started suggesting them in some cases. I never had one done, now after this I don't see myself doing one either. I've lost whatever faith I was starting to develop for them. I'm right back where I started. LOL
 
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Which lab is accredited?
Which lab does set-up, daily and shut down calibration checks? Which lab sends set samples between its various labs for confirmation?






Good questions. In the above example which lab is right?
 
MFA is just loopy. No Vanadium in that oil. P and Zn are crazy wrong. Some other strange numbers too.

WIX is OK but seem to be off on Al and Viscosity. If this was a UOA we might mention that viscosity had dropped and Al was high (say it was 11 (7+4) or so in the UOA)

Neither of the above labs have a critic tested history either.
 
Quote:

This is just one reason I don't waste money on UOAs.



Any measurement is subject to a confidence level; too many BITOGrs obsess on minor changes in ppm amounts when no one really knows the repeatability or certainty


If you go into a big box store to buy a thermometer, 3 out of 5 will display numbers that don't match. If I buy a few and place them outdoors and get a -25, -27 and -23 reading, I'm not really concerned about the "exactness" of the temperature, but "around -25" is what is important.

15,17,8,20 ppm of Fe, no concerns. 225ppm well....

It isn't the tool, it the way BITOGrs insist on using it.

No measurement is ever "right"
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: simple_gifts
Quote:

This is just one reason I don't waste money on UOAs.



Any measurement is subject to a confidence level; too many BITOGrs obsess on minor changes in ppm amounts when no one really knows the repeatability or certainty


If you go into a big box store to buy a thermometer, 3 out of 5 will display numbers that don't match. If I buy a few and place them outdoors and get a -25, -27 and -23 reading, I'm not really concerned about the "exactness" of the temperature, but "around -25" is what is important.

15,17,8,20 ppm of Fe, no concerns. 225ppm well....

It isn't the tool, it the way BITOGrs insist on using it.

No measurement is ever "right"


What you say is true, however you have to have some faith in the data or it's worthless.


These numbers were of most concern to me, since they are not stated in ppm. We all know a few ppm really doesn't matter much, but some people obsess about that too.
tbn 8.7 10.9 11.7
v40C 70 60.9 n/r
v100C 11.4 9.6 10.7

There's enough of a variation in these numbers to get some of us going nuts here if the results were this far off for a UOA.

At this point I'd have no clue on which one to believe, and would feel I wasted my money twice, since one report was free.
 
If the variation was within the same lab I would be concerned. All I see that this proves is that you cant compare UOA between different labs. Otherwise you need to know the repeatability within the one lab you use to draw trends.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
If the variation was within the same lab I would be concerned. All I see that this proves is that you cant compare UOA between different labs. Otherwise you need to know the repeatability within the one lab you use to draw trends.


I would have thought the 40C and 100C numbers would have been closer. Just the difference in percent between those numbers could cause concern if an oil thickened or thinned by those numbers listed in a UOA.
 
Quote:

What you say is true, however you have to have some faith in the data or it's worthless.


How much faith is warranted? Very few people understand the testing methodology, the allowed variation etc. It is just a WAG that "these numbers aren't good enough"

Quote:

At this point I'd have no clue on which one to believe,


It is not about belief. Ask a few carpenters to cut something @ 5' 3 3/4" inches. It won't be 5' 3 3/4" but that doesn't matter as it will be "good enough" for what it is being used.

I understand your concern. I'm not defending the variations wrt to viscosity; I'm suggesting (having worked in mfg) that "knowing" is a fleeting thing. Any measuring device needs to be 10 times more accurate than the precision to which you are trying to measure. If an oil fails into the 'light 30 weight' it might read 'high 20, light 30 even medium 30' it may make little difference if the oil reads 50 weight after 11K miles of service.

If anything it may highlight the potential foolishness of choosing one oil over another based on .x variations in cst.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

P
  • Locked
amsoil ATM 10w30 virgin sample result
Replies
16
Views
11K
BrianC
P
  • Locked
2 labs test amsoil ALM 5w20
Replies
7
Views
4K
MolaKule
P
  • Locked
amsoil ATM 10w30, 15k miles, w/ TAN
Replies
3
Views
2K
Pontual
P
  • Locked
amsoil ATM 10w30, 10k miles, w/ TAN
Replies
0
Views
952
pb
P
  • Locked
amsoil ATM 10w30, 11k miles w/ TAN
Replies
4
Views
2K
pb
Back
Top