4000 mile results, 3MP study, Amsoil 5w30, LS1 Camaro

[TooSlick]

I'd like to see duplicate samples taken and sent to another lab like Cleveland Tech Center or Analysts, Inc, specifically to see how well the TBN matches. I'd be willing to bet the results aren't even close ....

As just one example, take a look at the Amsoil analysis from the 6.0L GM V-8 that was just posted. It shows a TBN of 6.2 after 5000 miles and six months - using the conservative, "ASTM D-4739" test protocol. That would be a very realistic number, based on my ten years of experience with oil analysis....

The rest of the analysis is as I expected, with Amsoil showing significantly less valvetrain and piston/cylinder wear. Note the improved protection with regards to piston scuffing, with an Aluminum level of only 2, vs 5 for Mobil 1 ...

Differences of more than +/- 25% in wear rates are certainly significant, since they are coming from the same lab ....the # of lead wear is basically the same to this point.

Tooslick

 

[FowVay]

I also feel that it is very odd that the TBN has depleted at such a rate. However, in the interest of science the test must continue since the entire 18,000 miles of M-1 use was done this way. The Amsoil needs to be treated exactly the same.

I just wonder if the TBN continues to deplete is there going to be a recommendation from the laboratory to change the oil once it hits 1 or some predetermined number?

With the exception of TBN the oil seems to be doing a good job. If the additive level is dropping then we should start to see wear increases within the next 4,000 miles. I've know people that had to drain Series 2000 within 9,000 miles because of analysis lab recommendations so it's possible we'll see that here also.

 

[Patman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TooSlick:


The rest of the analysis is as I expected, with Amsoil showing significantly less valvetrain and piston/cylinder wear. Note the improved protection with regards to piston scuffing, with an Aluminum level of only 2, vs 5 for Mobil 1 ...

Differences of more than +/- 25% in wear rates are certainly significant, since they are coming from the same lab ....the # of lead wear is basically the same to this point.

---

Thanks for backing me up here Ted! I've been saying that Amsoil would show better results than Mobil 1, and some people here still seem to believe that Mobil 1 did just as well as Amsoil is doing, but you pointed out some very important facts there. Aluminum and iron being so much lower is definitely significant in my books. I am disappointed that the lead isn't lower, I truly thought the thicker viscosity of Amsoil would protect the bearings a bit more. But as the test hits 6k and beyond we might begin to see that number level off too.

 

[buster]

Wear rates will probably be lower, but barely and only due to the fact that the engine is now much older. The last oil used for this test will have a clear benefit. Statistically, I don't see ANY difference in wear btw M1 and Amsoil that justifies using Amsoil.

 

[FowVay]

I apologize for asking such a simple minded question here but can we make a average comparison?

How much would I actually have to pay for 5 quarts of Amsoil's normal 5W-30 oil? I would buy it in individual quarts.

For me, Mobil-1 5W-30 would cost me $4.49 per quart plus 7% sales tax. so I would pay $24.02 for the M-1.

I am not even going to start making suppositions but I am just curious about the value of each product.

 

[buster]

As a preferred customer, Amsoil ASL costs me a bit more then Mobil 1, but not by much. Some cars like the thicker viscosity of ASL, others don't. Here is a glimpse of each additive package. Both are great oils, I just question the difference at this present time and whether it's worth it. A difference of 2-5ppm of a particular element will not make your car last longer. The next best value IMO is RL at $7qt. However, for long drains the jury is still out.

Mobil 1

P 800ppm
Zinc 900 ppm
Calcium 2800
Boron 175
Moly 65
TBN 12

Amsoil

P 900-1000
Zinc 1000
Calcium 2100
Boron 45
Moly 0
TBN 12

I'd like to know what Amsoil does to the base stock to reduce it's volatility. NOAK is %5. Note though that ASL shows as good or in some cases better wear than M1 so it's not just the additive package.

[ February 29, 2004, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: buster ]

 

[3 Mad Ponchos]

IIRC I paid about $5.80/qt for ASL. Wally World often has M1 for close to $4/qt.

Cheers, 3MP

 

[Mobil2]

TBN 3.3... ***!?!

 

[Chris B.]

They are both close but like it was said before the Mobil 1 was used when the engine was newer and had more berak-in going on. If you used M1 right now I bet the leavels would be about the same.

 

[Doug Hillary]

Hi,
Chris B - I agree. And we even get people "excited" over a variance of 1ppm - that is One Part per Million!!!

Time will tell in this test but at least 3MP is prepared to make sure apples are apples and thats great stuff

In the end the "winner" should be that judged as the most cost effective to the user

Regards
Doug

 

[Motorbike]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug Hillary:


In the end the "winner" should be that judged as the most cost effective to the user

---

My opinion based on the TBN is this football game is not going into overtime . The math on the price/performance difference of the two oils is speaking for itself currently it seems to me .

 

[Motorbike]

quote:

---

Originally posted by FowVay:

However, in the interest of science the test must continue since the entire 18,000 miles of M-1 use was done this way. The Amsoil needs to be treated exactly the same.

---

I agree .

What is the next brand of oil used in this multiple test going to be ?

 

[buster]

quote:

---

And we even get people "excited" over a variance of 1ppm - that is One Part per Million!!!

---

That is how I look at it. I can't get excited about single digit parts per million differences. If you have 14ppm of Iron vs 7ppm, thats a 50% reduction, however, I doubt this means your engine will last 50% longer. Wishful thinking.

I'd be much more happy and enthusiastic about Amsoil in this report if it's TBN was higher. It is a concern in this test. Even if it levels off, how much further can it go?

[ March 01, 2004, 06:17 PM: Message edited by: buster ]

 

[TooSlick]

I don't know how many miles are on this engine, but it may be time for a tuneup? The only time I've seen this rate of TBN depletion is from abnormal contamination. Typically this would be coolant contamination or gross fuel dilution. However, an engine that isn't running well will also result in higher rates of oxidation/nitration.

The performance characteristics of any name brand oil are extremely consistent from batch to batch.... I ran this same "ASL" formulation for 12,000 miles/1 year in my Tacoma with NO makeup oil at all and the TBN was 7.2, using ASTM D-2896. That would equate to a TBN of 5.2-5.7, using the more conservative ASTM D-4739 method that Blackstone now employs.

During those 12k miles, I averaged 26 mpg and burned approx 450 gallons of fuel. Brians' site indicated his LS-1 averages 20 mpg - so that 450 gallons would take him about 9000 "equivalent" miles. In addition, the LS-1 has a sump which is 10% larger than my Tacoma, so there should be even less oil degradation.

I feel qualified to say this TBN data is not close to being accurate - unless the motor is badly out of tune ....

The difference in wear rates IS statistically significant and repeatable. Go back and run the Mobil 1, 5w-30 following this and I'm 99% certain they will go back up ....

 

[3 Mad Ponchos]

As indicated on the website, the car has just shy of 36,000 miles on it. I performed a tune-up between oils.

I remain skeptical of TBN as a valuable indicator of anything. The methodology for measuring it has too many issues.

Cheers, 3MP

 

[TooSlick]

Brian,

I'd have to very respectively disagree about TBN testing ....

I've gotten very consistent TBN's over the past ten years of oil analysis testing. This includes testing at Analysts, Inc., Cleveland Tech Center and Oil Analyzers,Inc/Amsoil. For example, when OAI switched from the ASTM D-2896 method to the ASTM D-4739 method, the TBN's I got for the same engines,under the same conditions, consistently dropped by 1.5-2.0 points.

Blackstone should do some "round robin" testing with other ISO 9000 qualified labs and figure out why their test protocol yields inconsistent results. This is most likely a calibration problem, and/or failure to follow the ASTM procedures to the letter.

In this case, you have an oil sample with a TS level of only 0.3%, that shows NO evidence of oxidative thickening, coolant contamination or fuel dilution. The only remaining chemical cause of this TBN depletion would be massive amounts of nitration. I'd suggest sending a second sample of oil from the 5000 mile test to Oil Analyzers to evaluate the % of nitration and cross check the TBN.

Let me know where to mail the free, OAI sample kit ...

 

[Doug Hillary]

He,
TooSlick, Ted - respectfully, why would we ask 3MP to deviate from the protocols that existed with the M1 test?

Why would we want to?

Let the test go down it's real comparitive path and then take an "Amsoil" sample at the end!

That way it is still apples for apples and credibility will be seen to be alive and well

As for the TBN issue, well we discussed some time ago the merits of both TBN and TAN. It became interesting. This test would have been a good platform for both TBN and TAN to have been monitored

Ted, I await your comments on the Detroit Diesel UOAs I posted under the Diesel Oil UOAs section
some time ago

Regards
Doug

[ March 01, 2004, 10:45 PM: Message edited by: Doug Hillary ]

 

[Pablo]

Doug - that's the point - it's NOT apples to apples!!

The technique now is a made up Blackstone method....and is NOT the same method used for the M1 run. They simply are not comparable. It seems with this "new" method a TBN of 1 still indicates life....a decline to 3.3 has all the lookieloos saying "oooh and ahh" and "***".....but what does it mean???

 

[Doug Hillary]

Hi Ted,
but the protocol issue still applies

And I have heard many arguments on the TBN testing regime - now you can grasp why I do both TBN and TAN and make my decisions accordingly

If 3MP decides its gone far enough ON THE TBN ISSUE ALONE then that's the time for a second look at the TBN prior to drain out. I am sure he knows that

This was an issue discussed during the M1 testing too I think but not on TBN

I applaud 3MP for the real world testing with its warts and all - keep it a-rollin!

Regards
Doug

 

[Terry]

TBN is but one piece of the trend testing here. The fact that the same lab is testing the oil and using the same TBN protocal is accurate enough for this test. This oil is still suitable for continued use by all indicators not just the relative TBN level.

CTC and OAI are not the leaders in the industry for highly accurate trended analysis by any means.

The chemical composition of the oil is more the issue than testing protocal in this case. As a case in point you will note that M1 SEEMS to be more TBN stable than both Redline and Amsoil formulations. That is because of the build of the lubes more than testing protocal.

As a matter of fact M1 will show TBN values long after the "effective" TBN capability is exhausted.

Amsoil and Redline will move to 0 in the BKlabs technique and still have more "effective" neutralization capability than the current M1 formula.

I'm still watching this test and say , drive on !

TD