So far the test shows me that both M1 and Amsoil are very good oils.
I can't wait for the next sample to come back!
I can't wait for the next sample to come back!
8,000-mile results are in!
- Thread starter 3 Mad Ponchos
- Start date
- Status
I'm with KW.
I think there are tradeoffs with oils. For instance, Amsoil has in the past had a thickening problem which IMO, gave M1 and RL an advantage. I do believe the recent UOAs of Amsoil suggest they have improved this.
With Mobil 1, there does seem to be a relationship between higher Fe and the time they lowered ZDP to around
However, if we play the Redline game, then I can say it's the borate esters reacting with the Iron.
Everyone ends up back to square one and the reality is they all do a good job, some better in certain aspects.
I think there are tradeoffs with oils. For instance, Amsoil has in the past had a thickening problem which IMO, gave M1 and RL an advantage. I do believe the recent UOAs of Amsoil suggest they have improved this.
With Mobil 1, there does seem to be a relationship between higher Fe and the time they lowered ZDP to around
However, if we play the Redline game, then I can say it's the borate esters reacting with the Iron.
Everyone ends up back to square one and the reality is they all do a good job, some better in certain aspects.
enough said, it's Mobil1 all the way!!!
It's not Mobil1 all the way. You need to say why....despite some people's guesses, M1 plain had more wear.
This oil is still in very good shape, as the total solids level of 0.3% and small increase in viscosity would indicate. If you sent a sample to a lab that performs the "ASTM D-4739" test protocol correctly, you'd see the actual TBN is more like 4.5 to 5.5. From personal experience, this oil will thicken up by 15% to 20% before the TBN bottoms out and wear rates start to increase.
The main/rod and cam bearing wear is still very well controlled, which would indicate significant TBN reserve and no problem with corrosion of softer metals.
Reviewing the other data, wear rates of ALL metals are lower and valvetrain/cylinder wear is 54% lower than with the Mobil 1, 5w-30. Since these are the parts that function under the highest loads, it's where you'd expect to see qualitative differences in wear protection. Switch back to Mobil 1 again after this test and you'd see valvetrain wear go back up significantly - mainly due to the lower viscosity and less than optimum level of ZDDP.
I'd change the filter after six months; top off the crankcase and keep running the test. I see no cause for concern at this point....
The main/rod and cam bearing wear is still very well controlled, which would indicate significant TBN reserve and no problem with corrosion of softer metals.
Reviewing the other data, wear rates of ALL metals are lower and valvetrain/cylinder wear is 54% lower than with the Mobil 1, 5w-30. Since these are the parts that function under the highest loads, it's where you'd expect to see qualitative differences in wear protection. Switch back to Mobil 1 again after this test and you'd see valvetrain wear go back up significantly - mainly due to the lower viscosity and less than optimum level of ZDDP.
I'd change the filter after six months; top off the crankcase and keep running the test. I see no cause for concern at this point....
patience grasshoper.
Unless its changed again, Blackstone condems TBN at 1.0 using the current TBN test method. Under the previous test, they condemned it at 2.0.
After looking through the numbers, my gut reaction is that the Amsoil is doing a bit better in the wear department than the Mobil 1.
Only question is will TBN hang in there or as it drops, will the wear go through the roof? I'm betting at this point TBN kills this oil off earler mileage wise, but if changed more frequently than M1 would actually produce better wear. Interesting for an oil that promotes long drain intervals...
Only question is will TBN hang in there or as it drops, will the wear go through the roof? I'm betting at this point TBN kills this oil off earler mileage wise, but if changed more frequently than M1 would actually produce better wear. Interesting for an oil that promotes long drain intervals...
I love this test.
(I'd like to see fuel consumption per 1000 miles also).
And if the two oils were available, side by side, at similar prices, I'd buy either.
As to the M1 wear, My Dad's Nissan Pulsar (with the 1.8 litre J car engine) has been running M1 15W-50 and 5W-50 for 280,000km, and has a noticeable wear depresion on the cams. Still blows no weed, nor uses more than 1/2 litre between changes.
(I'd like to see fuel consumption per 1000 miles also).
And if the two oils were available, side by side, at similar prices, I'd buy either.
As to the M1 wear, My Dad's Nissan Pulsar (with the 1.8 litre J car engine) has been running M1 15W-50 and 5W-50 for 280,000km, and has a noticeable wear depresion on the cams. Still blows no weed, nor uses more than 1/2 litre between changes.
I was wondering, do engines perform the same, in all types of weather conditions? The AMSOIL has not been in the car during extreme cold spells, correct? So the computer compinsates with richer mixtures till warm up meaning different enviroment for the oil at the time. Here the oil has not been subject to all the same factors as the Mobil 1. Am I correct in this? Remember I'm just an average person throwing in questions.
To bad we couldn't have three Camaro's, one filled with Mobil 1, one with AMSOIL and one with Redline. But then it would be hard to run them all at the same time in the same conditions by the same person.
I know this test isn't 100% but was just wondering. I say they both perform well and to give AMSOIL a chance. Don't call it off untill you have to.
To bad we couldn't have three Camaro's, one filled with Mobil 1, one with AMSOIL and one with Redline. But then it would be hard to run them all at the same time in the same conditions by the same person.
I know this test isn't 100% but was just wondering. I say they both perform well and to give AMSOIL a chance. Don't call it off untill you have to.
The test is not complete, but from what my eyes see I am glad my choice is Mobil!
Daily Drives:
-2003 Toyota Tacoma PreRunner XtraCab, 2.7 Liter , Mobil1 Synthetic SS 5W-30.
ODO 8700 Miles.
-1995 Toyota 4-Runner 3.0 V6, Mobil1 Synthetic SS 10W-30.
ODO 85500 Miles.
http://community.webshots.com/user/amkeer
Daily Drives:
-2003 Toyota Tacoma PreRunner XtraCab, 2.7 Liter , Mobil1 Synthetic SS 5W-30.
ODO 8700 Miles.
-1995 Toyota 4-Runner 3.0 V6, Mobil1 Synthetic SS 10W-30.
ODO 85500 Miles.
http://community.webshots.com/user/amkeer
As I've pointed out on numerous occasions before this test started, the Blackstone method for determining TBN is simply not accurate. After 2000 miles, they got a TBN of 5.1 for this batch of oil, which is way off the mark. If you took these TBN's for the used samples and doubled the results, you'd get closer to what the ASTM D-4739 method used by other labs would yield.
I actually wouldn't be surprised to see the TBN go back up slightly with the next sample, since there is some variation in this test.
I should add that for these Vortec V-8 and V-6 applications, I believe the "Series 3000", 5w-30 is going to give you the longest drain intervals of any Amsoil formulation. Drain intervals in these V-8 engine applications are normally limited by fuel contamination and nitration and the "diesel formulated" lubes just seem to do better here. Not meant as an excuse, but simply a recommendation based on quite a bit of experience testing Amsoil over the past decade ....I'd expect the "HDD" formulation to last perhaps 25% longer in this motor than "ASL" ....
Tooslick
www.lubedealer.com/Dixie_Synthetics
I actually wouldn't be surprised to see the TBN go back up slightly with the next sample, since there is some variation in this test.
I should add that for these Vortec V-8 and V-6 applications, I believe the "Series 3000", 5w-30 is going to give you the longest drain intervals of any Amsoil formulation. Drain intervals in these V-8 engine applications are normally limited by fuel contamination and nitration and the "diesel formulated" lubes just seem to do better here. Not meant as an excuse, but simply a recommendation based on quite a bit of experience testing Amsoil over the past decade ....I'd expect the "HDD" formulation to last perhaps 25% longer in this motor than "ASL" ....
Tooslick
www.lubedealer.com/Dixie_Synthetics
Patman
Staff member
The start of both tests occured in the fall so each oil has seen virtually identical weather so far.
Hello again. Let's see where we left off. Hm.
The test does have a couple of limitations. One is that the engine wasn't completely broken in at 10,000 miles, a situation that, frankly, I didn't foresee. On the other hand, the only wear metal that was completely out of line is copper, so my inclination is to accept other metals more or less at face value, and disregard only the copper numbers. One data point to consider for this position is lead, which is lower than M1 but not dramatically so.
Another limitation is that the Amsoil phase is not accumulating mileage at the same pace of the Mobil 1 phase. This is strictly a function of gas prices at $2.15 a gallon, and I don't see it changing in the near future.
The oil thickening out of grade doesn't bother some people, which is why I'm continuing the study, but it does bother me. The LS1 (not a Vortec) ran smoother on fresh M1 than it did on used M1, or on fresh Amsoil. For Amsoil to keep thickening only makes the engine run rougher still. It's annoying. As far as I'm concerned, if you're going to market a 30-wt oil, it **** well ought to stay a 30-wt. If your oil goes out of grade coz it's only just barely in-grade to begin with, then it shouldn't be a great surprise when customers get irate about the failure of the product to behave as expected. Had M1 thinned to a 20-wt, I would have had similar remarks.
TBN remains problematic with Blackstone. I sincerely hope something else causes us to retire this oil before we have to decide whether Blackstone's TBN method will be the trigger. At least, however, the current TBN method seems to be internally consistent so far, regardless of whether the numbers are comparable to outside laboratories. With three different accepted ASTM methodologies for measuring TBN, and all of them shockingly imprecise (the best of them is something like +/- 15%) as well as using different scales, I remain skeptical that TBN in general has any real decisionmaking value.
With the 9,000 mile sample I'll try to remember to test using one of the Dexsil kits I have. This is the same procedure Blackstone used to use, though it must be noted that in the past my Dexsil results have not matched Blackstone's exactly.
I suspect that the Amsoil will hold out for a while yet -- M1 made it 4,000 miles hovering in the 2.5/2.4 TBN range, so Amsoil may yet level off. The constant thickening is annoying, but I'll let it be until it hits 75.2 SUS. That'd be a 20% increase from virgin on the cST scale, which is the actual official scale for oil grades. Wear numbers certainly don't suggest that they'll be the critical factor -- Amsoil looks to wear less than M1, but then the question is whether the improvement is worth the 50% price premium, and purchasing hassles. It wouldn't be for me, but that's something I'll leave for individuals to decide.
Just in the interest of full disclosure, on the vehicles not participating in the study, I run M1 in the car and Amsoil in the bike. The decision is strictly based on price -- I'm comfortable with either oil in my vehicles without hesitation. Strangely, the Amsoil motorcycle oil is cheaper than the M1 motorcycle oil, and both are available off-the-shelf.
Cheers, 3MP
The test does have a couple of limitations. One is that the engine wasn't completely broken in at 10,000 miles, a situation that, frankly, I didn't foresee. On the other hand, the only wear metal that was completely out of line is copper, so my inclination is to accept other metals more or less at face value, and disregard only the copper numbers. One data point to consider for this position is lead, which is lower than M1 but not dramatically so.
Another limitation is that the Amsoil phase is not accumulating mileage at the same pace of the Mobil 1 phase. This is strictly a function of gas prices at $2.15 a gallon, and I don't see it changing in the near future.
The oil thickening out of grade doesn't bother some people, which is why I'm continuing the study, but it does bother me. The LS1 (not a Vortec) ran smoother on fresh M1 than it did on used M1, or on fresh Amsoil. For Amsoil to keep thickening only makes the engine run rougher still. It's annoying. As far as I'm concerned, if you're going to market a 30-wt oil, it **** well ought to stay a 30-wt. If your oil goes out of grade coz it's only just barely in-grade to begin with, then it shouldn't be a great surprise when customers get irate about the failure of the product to behave as expected. Had M1 thinned to a 20-wt, I would have had similar remarks.
TBN remains problematic with Blackstone. I sincerely hope something else causes us to retire this oil before we have to decide whether Blackstone's TBN method will be the trigger. At least, however, the current TBN method seems to be internally consistent so far, regardless of whether the numbers are comparable to outside laboratories. With three different accepted ASTM methodologies for measuring TBN, and all of them shockingly imprecise (the best of them is something like +/- 15%) as well as using different scales, I remain skeptical that TBN in general has any real decisionmaking value.
With the 9,000 mile sample I'll try to remember to test using one of the Dexsil kits I have. This is the same procedure Blackstone used to use, though it must be noted that in the past my Dexsil results have not matched Blackstone's exactly.
I suspect that the Amsoil will hold out for a while yet -- M1 made it 4,000 miles hovering in the 2.5/2.4 TBN range, so Amsoil may yet level off. The constant thickening is annoying, but I'll let it be until it hits 75.2 SUS. That'd be a 20% increase from virgin on the cST scale, which is the actual official scale for oil grades. Wear numbers certainly don't suggest that they'll be the critical factor -- Amsoil looks to wear less than M1, but then the question is whether the improvement is worth the 50% price premium, and purchasing hassles. It wouldn't be for me, but that's something I'll leave for individuals to decide.
Just in the interest of full disclosure, on the vehicles not participating in the study, I run M1 in the car and Amsoil in the bike. The decision is strictly based on price -- I'm comfortable with either oil in my vehicles without hesitation. Strangely, the Amsoil motorcycle oil is cheaper than the M1 motorcycle oil, and both are available off-the-shelf.
Cheers, 3MP
It comes from the fact that the car runs rougher with thicker oil in it. More vibrations. It's been true for both LS1s I've owned.
Cheers, 3MP
Cheers, 3MP
But will the thickening be more likely to cause a sludge problem than will the thinning?
This small amount of thickening does not mean the oil is turning to sludge.
I ran the Mobil 1 SUS numbers throught the conversion and came up with 66.95 SUS as a 20% failure. It appears the Mobil 1 failed at 16k miles with a SUS of 67.8. This resulted in a cst of 12.36. Of course it came back down for the 17k and 18k tests. I don't know if you replenished any oil after the 16k test was drawn to bring it down.
You should probably take this into account if and when you should reach a 20% limit with the Amsoil and be sure to top off and continue for another test to make sure it doesn't come down also.
wulimaster - you are as sharp as your title!!!
- Status