8,000-mile results are in!

[TooSlick]

Generally you want to keep the total solids level below 0.7%. However, if the oil is still in decent shape but insolubles are marginal, a simple filter change and topoff can stabilize them for thousands of more miles.

Oil filters work through the dual mechanisms of surface screening and absorption/sponging of contaminents. It is this sponging capability that seems to degrade as you put more miles on an oil filter. It's something of a fallacy to think the filter efficiency keeps increasing up to the point where the filter actually clogs. Before you get to that point, you'll be functioning in the by-pass mode for a significant percentage of the time. Soot and/or solids will tend to increase under those conditions ....

 

[gudmund]

Pablo' like I said 'enough said, it's Mobil1' and I'm do not have to say any more. (not after the tongue laching I got for badmouthing Amsoil and all their self proclaimed 'oil experts' and their whining during the 7000mile sample)

 

[gudmund]

PS Pablo; one of these days I'll have to put some more miles/hours on the "Mobil1" in the crankcase and head north and sit down and talk oil with you being you are only a few miles up the road from me and I am in your area off and on due to it not costing much even with gas at $2.++per gallon to go cruizing the country side in a Suzuki Swift when you get 42+++mpg! As the song of years ago said "oh lord, it's hard to be humble, when you get 42 miles per gallon..."(my words to it anyway)

 

[3 Mad Ponchos]

Wulimaster -- nevertheless it stayed in grade the entire time. Both are considerations.

Cheers, 3MP

 

[buster]

Pb is a wash. Fe is really the main difference and like I said, and what TS has been saying, is that it seems like Fe went up, when ZDP went down. A possible trend.

Each oil seems to have it's +'s and -'s. If Amsoil looses more TBN reserve and thickens, then the winner is Mobil 1, hands down. Mobil 1 doesn't get enough credit for staying in grade. There aren't many M1 UOAs where M1 thickened out of grade. I believe Mobil 1 uses their highest quality SS PAO, the one George said doesn't get sold to anyone else. That is just a possibility however. Still more time to go. I have to say, what Mobil gives you for the $ is tough to beat. Amsoil really has to go a bit further to get more people on board IMO. Great oils though.

Dr.T, I'd rather have the oil thin a bit and pick up a few HP. Protection would still be fine. Thickening could be the worse problem with oils bc that leaves you with sludge precursors. Redline's claim to fame is it's stable POE base oil that prevents this from happening and a reason why Terry likes it. A dirty engine is a sick engine. Just bc the oil thickened doesn't mean you increasing it's HT/HS ability. It doesn't work that way and vice versa.

[ May 13, 2004, 09:26 PM: Message edited by: buster ]

 

[Dr. T]

I disagree. If an oil thins, you are getting less protection. If it thickens, the protection will only prove to be even better than what you started from. No doubt, one of the reasons for the better numbers with Amsoil.

That said, it didn't thicken enough so as to discredit it. Where do the "runs rougher" comments come from. Most will report that an engine runs smoother and quieter with a thicker viscosity. Note, this is not the same as "used oil".

The way I see the results thusfar....better wear numbers and lower consumption. 2 thumbs up for Amsoil (price notwithstanding).

 

[quadrun1]

In my experience, you're getting buildup if you let the oil thicken by 20%. But for the purposes of this study, I guess we have to stick with that figure.

I wouldn't want an oil to change in viscosity too much in either direction! Based on the UOAs I've seen here, I'd personally use a lower limit for % viscosity change, around 13%.

GC always seems to maintain its viscosity very well (within 3-4%, even in my 10K UOA, which had no top-offs).

3MP, will you be trying GC?

 

[buster]

In terms of wear, Amsoil is doing better and when broken down on a % basis, it looks convincing. However, I do question the real world significance of a 23% difference in Pb wear. Will 10ppm vs 13ppm really yeild a longer more healthy engine?

Will the bearings actually last or hold up 23 % longer or hold up better? Those are the questions I have. Based on what I've heard over and over again, the answer is no, they won't. Remember how many people have obtained 300k miles just on dino oil alone. Then we have RL, that aparently scavanges wear and other carbon deposits that normally won't show up with a PAO based synthetic.

I'd like to see Redline next. It's time to see what it's made of.

No BG added or anything. A good rinse and then let RL begin.

Regarding the "thickenning/thinning" aspect, RL with it's POE is supposed to be the most stable oil out there. So, would you sacrifice small ppm differences in wear and take the more shear stable oil?

[ May 14, 2004, 08:09 PM: Message edited by: buster ]

 

[Patman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by buster:
In terms of wear, Amsoil is doing better and when broken down on a % basis, it looks convincing. However, I do question the real world significance of a 23% difference in Pb wear. Will 10ppm vs 13ppm really yeild a longer more healthy engine?

Will the bearings actually last or hold up 23 % longer or hold up better? Those are the questions I have.

---

Maybe they will, maybe they won't, but chances are obviously better than the reports showing lower wear equals an engine lasting longer. Perhaps even with that extra lead content the engine will still last 300k. But who really knows, and why risk it? Why not choose the oil which shows you the lowest wear? Once again, most of us on here strive for the lowest engine wear we can acheive. Why settle for anything less? Is that not why most of us are doing UOAs?

 

[buster]

quote:

---

Why settle for anything less? Is that not why most of us are doing UOAs?

---

I'll tell you why. Take this test for example. Is it worth the hassle of ordering an oil when one already sits on the shelf that is only giving you 3ppm more of Pb at the same interval? Is it worth tracking down GC obsessively? Thats my point.

Think about the insignificance of 3 PARTS PER MILLION?

Also, you didn't answer the thickenning aspect question. Over the course of the engine's life, what will leave more deposits/sludge behind? I'm not implying Amsoil is doing that, but if it thickens anymore, that is something to consider.

Also, to me, it's foolish to go around saying Mobil 1 isn't good in a LS1 you should use brand X or a thicker oil. I've said this over and over again that while there are better choices, it's not clear that they truly that much better. The 2 best LS1 reports in my mind are with Mobil 1. However, Fe is an issue with M1 as of the last 6months or so and it could be related to ZDP. In that case, I would clearly chose Amsoil/GC or whatever. Fe is an issue with me and I'd like to know why it is higher. It could be the Boron. M1 uses more Boron then any oil out there. But maybe it is a ZDP issue....if there are reasons RL sux on most UOAs, then their might as well be a reason for M1 to show higher Fe right?

Patman, your going to tell me then that reports like THIS are not good and one should use another brand?

Or this UOA

Or this one?

Stayed perfectly in grade at 8k miles.

[ May 15, 2004, 10:24 AM: Message edited by: buster ]

 

[Motorbike]

There are a couple analysis's here where one for example , a 5.7 Chevy ran Mobil SS then switched to Chevron dino with even less Zinc . The Fe was lowered with the Chevron .

I did not ever before nor do I now think Fe and Mobil SS is entirely related to low Zinc .

Anyhow an interesting cost vs performance per miles test here huh ? All wear metals easily within limit ect even during break-in when the Mobil was used .

If the Redline oil is up next , at around 7.99 per quart should it go 36k miles ? Or is this not the way to look at cost vs performance/longetivity of an oil ?

 

[Patman]

Buster, I give up.

 

[Last_Z]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patman:
Here is a quick comparison between Amsoil at 8k and his last test with Mobil 1 at the 8k mark:

code:

---

Amsoil M1

Iron 16 35

Lead 10 13

Al 4 5

Copper 64 111

Chrome 1 2

Tin 0 5

---

You guys might feel the numbers aren't much different but I beg to differ. Iron is considerably better with Amsoil and so is tin. Lead isn't as low as I thought it would be, but still better, and with the thicker viscosity you'll note the lead isn't increasing now, so it should continue that trend hopefully.

---

The numbers Pat put up in this comparo definitely look better for the Amsoil team......BUT, I would like to direct you attention to the first 1000 miles run on the Mobil 1 oil.

code:

---

Iron 10

Lead 5

Tin 4

Silicon 9

---

The question I have is:

What cause these elevated wear metals to show up in just 1k miles? Either the M1 cleaned up something, there was some contamination in the engine, dirt ingestion and/or bad oil collection procedure. Of all metals, Tin is the one that caught my eye at 4PPMs in just 1k miles!

I think something is up! I just don't know what it is!

 

[buster]

Z raises a good question. Patman, I know where your comming from. Amsoil is wearing better, but there have been some really good M1 reports in LS1's and to me I think they show that M1 is perfectly fine for the LS1. Their are better oils for this engine I imagine, but to write off M1 for this engine seems a bit crazy to me. And the more I read Terry's comments, and Redline's take on UOAS, how do we know what oil is really doing better?

 

[Patman]

I believe it was his sampling method which caused the high reading in the 1k sample on M1. Remember how high his fuel was? (3%!) He later mentioned that he took the sample as soon as he opened the drain plug, instead of letting a little bit flow out first. So that is probably the reason the wear metals are so high on that first sample too.

By the way Buster, I'm not writing off M1 for this engine, I simply suggest to people that they should be using 0w40 instead of the 5w30, especially if they drive the car hard. The LS1s run very high oil temps (300 degrees on a road course if you have no oil cooler!) so you'd be foolish to run a 10cst oil under those conditions. And even a daily driver in Texas would see 250-270F oil temps easily too. Are you sure you'd still want to run an oil that is already almost a 5w20 to begin with?

[ May 17, 2004, 05:58 AM: Message edited by: Patman ]

 

[Terry]

Patman said; "The LS1s run very high oil temps (300 degrees on a road course if you have no oil cooler!) so you'd be foolish to run a 10cst oil under those conditions."

Really ?

You haven't retained a thing I have taught you, on this issue Pat..

You need to reread Molakules comments and study the definition of VI and viscometrics and wear reduction.

The engine and bearings don't care what a bottle says the 'grade' is. The bearings react to the vis and wedge they see under stress. If that oil is testing at X vis in the lab, the bearing is seeing something it may not be designed for thus the rougher running issues the 3MP is describing.

If ANY brand oil is thickening out of its design grade by oxidation, as we see here, the wear will be affected at some point not so much by vis but by the physics of the fluid change.

The type wear pattern will define how that change is affecting the engine and give a good indication of the rate of wear corresponding to the degredation of the oil.

The vis variation in automotive oils isn't as critical for protection as the chemical stability of that oil. Vis is only one part of a very complex combination. Even in LS1's running roadcoarses professionally. FLASH some are running thinner than 10cSt by design !!!!

The thickening is a symptom.

Part of the europa move towards 0w-40 type oils is that they are relying on the design "shear" for fuel economy issues while allowing the oils to be used as more universal application lubes that require a SAE 40w rated oil, mostly for marketing reasons.

When I get more time I will try to post a public read of this trend and result.

Terry

[ May 17, 2004, 10:44 AM: Message edited by: Terry ]

 

[2003TRD]

So I think we should follow the amsoil manufacturer recommendation of changing the filter every 6 months and topping it off. Will it effect the study- yes. But I think amsoil points out to change the filter q6mo so why not follow it?

 

[Lumberg]

Just wanted to add, 3MPP, I would LOVE to see a companion study on a V-twin. Also in the motorcycle section someone is looking for people to test AuroRX in bikes....they provide the AUtoRX!

Good work!

 

[Motorbike]

I posted in either the 4k ,5k ,6k mile results that per the 3MP website this engine was overheated early on in this run of Amsoil . I forget but I seem to remember it was nothing major but getting an engine HOT one time could skew a result .

I'll not bring it up again but no-one answered when I posted this info I found so ...is this why the TBN is down ?

what say ye

Also , overheating w/o damage really seasons the block and or liners . Thats but one of the reason race engine builders usually prefer used block castings for a new motor .

 

[G-MAN]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Motorbike:
I posted in either the 4k ,5k ,6k mile results that per the 3MP website this engine was overheated early on in this run of Amsoil . I forget but I seem to remember it was nothing major but getting an engine HOT one time could skew a result .

---

I don't see anything anywhere on the 3MP website about the engine overheating.