3MP's 3000 mile Amsoil results

[TooSlick]

Most labs uses ASTM "D-2896" to evaluate the TBN of fresh oil, but many use ASTM "D-4739" to evaluate the TBN of oil that has been in service. These test protocols use a different type of acid to do the titration (neutralization test), so the results aren't directly comparable.

The D-2896 test normally results in a TBN that is 1.5-2.0 points higher than the D-4739 test. This is why the initial TBN drop looks pretty steep. The baseline TBN's you see reported on spec sheets are almost always ASTM D-2896 data.

Oil Analyzers/CTC now uses the ASTM D-4739 protocol to test both new and used oils. Their baseline TBN's are lower, but the rate of TBN depletion looks more linear when you plot the TBN as a function of oil miles ....


TS

 

[buster]

Tooslick, stating a bunch of ASTM test procedures dones't tell me why THIS TBN has dropped from the inintial. Problem is that the lab that did the initial TBN, is still doing it so it doesn't matter, ITS DROPPING. I won't say that a 4 means it's a 6 or whatever, but the TBN HAS dropped off significanly. 90% of most users use Blackstone labs and don't have too much of a problem. Is it entirely accurate? No, but it still tells you something. Unless it stabilizes, which is very likely and probable, the oil might get depleted quicker then thought. Adding the makeup oil for the samples taken will help, hopefully.

12,8,5,4 is the pattern.

[ February 06, 2004, 07:55 PM: Message edited by: buster ]

 

[Pablo]

Buster just remember that Blackstone says that with their TBN of 2 "plenty of additive" left..

As for the why it's not linear, a couple reasons. There isn't just one basic (alkaline) component on the oil (takes more or a stronger acid concentration), some bases react in a dibasic fashion (effectively two -OH groups) and generally an oil mix is not an easy thing to titrate....

 

[3 Mad Ponchos]

Buster,

The SAE Tech Papers I've been reading suggest that the components in virgin oil that cause a high TBN reading are the first to break down when assaulted by engine acids. These therefore fall quickly, but the compounds that they form after breaking down also serve as positive TBN agents -- just at a reduced level. They are however much more stable, which is why we see TBN level off after an initial plunge. The SAE papers generally report TBN as well as TAN, and these charts invariably show TAN rising as TBN falls -- though not as quickly, it's worth noting -- until the two values reach equilibrium, where they stay in very close proximity to each other until the TBN finally gives out, and TAN shoots through the roof. From what I've seen, you don't want to be there when the TBN lets go, because it happens quickly and the rise in TAN afterward is nearly exponential.

Cheers, 3MP

 

[buster]

3MP, thanks for the post.

Regardless, though Mobil 1 didn't drop as fast and that is a fact. I still think the TBN is too low at this point. I do think it will stablize and it still might make it to 18k but only time will tell.

 

[JoggingGuy]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patman:
Here is a quick comparison of M1 at the 3k mark and Amsoil at the 3k mark:

code:

---

Mobil 1 Amsoil

Aluminum 4 2

Chromium 1 1

Iron 14 10

Copper 81 63

Lead 4 3

Tin 4 0

---

---

Tin looks excellent!

Sorry, couldn't resist

 

[Terry]

TBN as a oil change marker indicator;

With BKlabs TBN testing protocal any indication above 0 is safe but 1.0 is the oil change indication you could use and have a wide margin for error.

BKlabs TBN testing is consistant and very useful for trending.

Satterfi trust me BKLABS is one of the good guys when it comes to varying SAE/ASTM standards and modifing standardized tests. The fact that they purchased a new machine and had a trial and error period was just honest. Many labs would have done what you mentioned

and never told you.

3MP the TBN info you have shared is excellent and correct.

 

[buster]

With that said, there is still plenty of life left.

Just strange as to why it's dropping so fast in comparison to M1's TBN. Two different oils though.

 

[Pablo]

Buster,

TBN of M1 at 1000 miles = 16.5
TBN of M1 at 3000 miles = 8.5

A drop of 49%

Don't worry about the method, scale, etc, now:

TBN of Amsoil at 1000 miles = 8.3
TBN of Amsoil at 3000 miles = 4.3

A drop of 48%

I don't get what you are saying???

 

[buster]

I see M1 at 11.8 (which is probaby more accurate) then down to 8.5 at 3k. Is the 8.5 the new or old method?

I see Amsoil at 12 to start now 4.3.

*note, I'm not saying Amsoil is done. I'm just trying to understand why the drop off is so rapid. It was just explained by 3MP so it makes more sense. However, if the same lab/conditions etc. were used with Mobil 1, it seemed to stay higher longer. There is plenty of life with this oil.

[ February 07, 2004, 10:39 PM: Message edited by: buster ]

 

[Pablo]

Oh I see now why you are confused....that 11.8 is virgin oil the new Blackstone way (he did it much later on some new oil, see the * ) ...and therefore you can't link it to the old way at 8.5 (3000 miles)...it's simply meaningless. As we have been saying, you can't cross over compare the results.

I stand by what I just wrote. The % change in TBN's is statistically identical.

Terry - the other labs simply haven't been messing with their methods. But I agree with your other statements.

 

[2003TRD]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pablo:
Buster,

TBN of M1 at 1000 miles = 16.5
TBN of M1 at 3000 miles = 8.5

A drop of 49%

Don't worry about the method, scale, etc, now:

TBN of Amsoil at 1000 miles = 8.3
TBN of Amsoil at 3000 miles = 4.3

A drop of 48%

I don't get what you are saying???

---

Good point pablo

 

[Terry]

"Terry - the other labs simply haven't been messing with their methods"


Pabs, They all mess with their methods and when a machine is changed out they have problems, difference is, you don't know it.

The labs that use Dexsil reagents only, would vary constantly depending on the visual color accuity of the operator.

 

[msparks]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patman:
Here is a quick comparison of M1 at the 3k mark and Amsoil at the 3k mark:

code:

---

Mobil 1 Amsoil

Aluminum 4 2

Chromium 1 1

Iron 14 10

Copper 81 63

Lead 4 3

Tin 4 0

---

---

I just don't see how these numbers can be usefull in any way. The car has different miles, and has been run over different conditions.

 

[TooSlick]

I'd say a comparison of iron and lead wear will turn out to be most useful in this case. The rate of bronze (Cu/Sn) wear in the LS-1 engine, coming from the cam bearings, will continue to decrease as you put more miles on the engine.

Iron and lead wear have been reduced by about 25% to date in comparison to the previous test, and I would expect that trend to continue. This results from both the thicker basestock and the increased level of ZDDP in all the Amsoil formulations ....

Tooslick
www.lubedealer.com/Dixie_Synthetics

 

[buster]

I expect Amsoil to thicken out of grade. Wear has nothing to do with ZDDP in this case, an Amsoil falacy. It does have more to do with the thicker viscosity IMO.

[ February 13, 2004, 07:17 PM: Message edited by: buster ]

 

[TooSlick]

Run the garden variety Mobil 1, 0w30 and then Mobil 1R, 0w30 back to back and you'll see less iron wear with the 1R, but not necessarily less bearing wear. The correct AW chemistry prevents cam/lifter wear and optimum viscosity prevents excessive bearing wear.

That's why there is so much concern about further reductions in ZDDP levels when the new "GF-4" oils that are due out next summer. These oils aren't going to be any thinner than the current "SL" rated formulations, but they will have a 20% reduction in ZDDP levels. Trying to get an SAE 5w-20, GF-4 oil w/ < 800 ppm of P and < 1000 ppm of Zn, to pass valvetrain wear limits should be interesting indeed.

 

[TooSlick]

Buster,

I send out a ton of PM's these days and often recommend competitive products for those who are looking for a lube that is more widely available, such as Mobil 1 ....It would be kind of dumb for me as a site sponsor, to continually promote the use of competitive products on a public forum, don't you think?

The reduction in ZDDP levels is THE main concern of the GF-4 specification. It has been talked about endlessly in lube industry, trade publications. Of course there are other ways around it, but they tend to be more expensive and those solutions are limited to synthetic formulations. The 90%-95% of the market that is composed of petroleum oils is extremely price sensitive. If you formulate a killer petroleum oil that is even 30-50 cents more per quart, absolutely no one will buy it ....

TKublin
Dixie Synthetics

 

[buster]

Ted, I enjoy your posts and know that you recommend other oils, at times. I do disagree with some of your comments, but it doesn't matter. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. You obviously have an extensive background in this field.

I would like to ask you why Amsoil has told me on several occasions that they use a very simplistic additive package, simply because they focus on extended drains? I posted something awhile back that no Amsoil sponsor never addressed regarding the base oil blends. If you look at ANY Amsoil VOA, there is no moly, hardly any Boron and low levels of calcium. What are they relying of for secondary AW additives? When I look at there oils, they seem to just be a high quality base oil with higher levels of ZDDP. RL, Synergyn and others seem to have a better additive package.

One other think that has me questioning Amsoil is their responses to Moly. Amsoil techs have told me they don't use moly in there oils bc it can come out of suspenion in long drains. Are they really that out of touch with things?

[ February 14, 2004, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: buster ]

 

[buster]

Another thing I wanted to add was Mobil 1 0w-20 is putting up some of the best numbers among all oils. Bearing wear and Iron wear have been phenomenal. Same amount of ZDDP but I believe they are using something else in this oil.