Amsoil 10w-30 vs. the world: oil test results

toocrazy2yoo · Apr 24, 2006

I know they're showing a wide spread between the Amsoil and the QS, MC, and TA depending on the test, but aren't we really talking miniscule real-world differences in the collective performance of all these motor oils? I mean, in a layman's interpetation, does any of this matter when most folks change at 3k, or amongst the lazy or enlightened, 5, 6, or 7.5k?

What does it mean? I know the graph shows radical differences, but are the NUMBERS all that significant, again, to folks that change much more often than the test medium?

Also, Amsoil used 10w30, why not 5W30 against others' 5W30? Or 5W-20? I'm not busting on Amsoil, Pablo, and I'm the first to admit I don't know the ramifications of all that is presented in this test, other than a concept of longevity, but what does it really matter? They couldn't have done an expensive comparison to cater to a bunch of mad-hat oil changers. And frankly, I doubt 99.5% of the oil changing public even knows or cares about any of it. So why bother? Who's their target audience?

Pablo · Apr 24, 2006

Good questions toocrazy....why 10w30 for this one? That is just weird, but I think the first round way back they ran the 10w30 so maybe they wanted to stick with it. Dunno.

I think it's geared toward JQ Pubic to just show "synthetic superiority" - at first they didn't compare vs. other synthetics, then they did the shoot out just with M1, and now it seems they rolled the two together.

I have asked in the past about why some of the competition numbers are different than the mfr websites. The answer being that Amsoil or Southwest Research just went and bought a qt or two with no consideration to age, batch, stated specifications, etc

hominid7 · Apr 24, 2006

quote:

Originally posted by Pablo:
I have asked in the past about why some of the competition numbers are different than the mfr websites. The answer being that Amsoil or Southwest Research just went and bought a qt or two with no consideration to age, batch, stated specifications, etc

If that is indeed the case then these test are really meaningless. If we look at a SH oil vs a SM oil of the same brand i'm sure they will vary greatly.

In looking at the 4-ball wear test I just have a hard time believing the results. Formula shell really did that much better than Havoline and Pennzoil? I find it hard to believe.

I'm not knocking amsoil, i'm sure they have a great product, i'm just suspicious of the testing methods and perhaps, as you stated, the supplies of oil tested.

Unless these results can be re-produced on a consistant basis, all using the same supplies of oil that have been subjected to the same storage times, temperatures and atmospheres, then i'm not sure we should take them as gospel truth.

Schmoe · Apr 24, 2006

Surprised that PP didn't "peg" the meters on almost all tests by the way some members here tout it's performance.

427Z06 · Apr 24, 2006

quote:

Originally posted by Pablo:
I'm not "blowing a head gasket", please. I never said Amsoil didn't thicken, but you said "always".....and that is a strong word, no matter how much you try to explain it away. Again I am not attacking, please do not take it that way.

Show me where I said "always".

quote:

Originally posted by Pablo:
I am not attacking, please do not take it that way.

Well it sure looks like it to me. Anytime I just ask a question about Amsoil, you go into full press mode or start accusing me of hating Amsoil.

quote:

Originally posted by Pablo:
http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=003403
http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=002390

Sure, I can cherry picked results too.

quote:

Originally posted by Pablo:
First one has a coolant leak, second one slightly out of grade, third one has HIGH Na and is barely out of grade, 4th one had "the code read "insufficient EGR flow". " and strange lab report, 5th one had high Na and carb cleaner cleaner and was just barely out of range..........last one went 24K and yes thickened. Barely.

Like I said, I just randomly grabbed twenty Amsoil 10w30 results. If there's a few with mitigating circumstances, that's understandable. Throw those away and your still left with approximately 15 showing thickening under longer OCIs.

quote:

Originally posted by Pablo:
I didn't see one as thick as molasses.

Come on Pabs, stop being disingenuous. You're intelligent enough to know that was a figure of speech.

quote:

Originally posted by Pablo:
Why Amsoil used to thicken? I wish I knew, everyone assumes oxidation. I'm not so sure.

Well, at least we got back to the original question. I'm still wondering how Amsoil has claimed all along that it does better than most other brands in the TFOUT test yet it can still suffer from oxidative thickening, or whatever, on longer OCIs. So this go around they really, really, truly mean it?

By the way, I'm still trying to figure out how you can claim "M1 thickened more percentage wise and had a filter change and oil top up" in the 3MP test. Care to show us how you got those numbers?

427Z06 · Apr 25, 2006

quote:

Originally posted by Bill:
Using UOAs of German Castrol, I could make GC look bad, look at these UOAs for GC, it thickened like molasses...

I'm not sure what you were trying to prove, but since GC starts out at around 12.1 cSt @100C, those references make GC look viscometrically fairly stable.

Bill · Apr 25, 2006

quote:

I'm not sure what you were trying to prove, but since GC starts out at around 12.1 cSt @100C, those references make GC look viscometrically fairly stable.

‘viscometrically fairly stable’ can be interpreted differently depending on who is the observer.

427Z06 · Apr 25, 2006

quote:

Originally posted by Bill:

quote:

I'm not sure what you were trying to prove, but since GC starts out at around 12.1 cSt @100C, those references make GC look viscometrically fairly stable.

Click to expand...

‘viscometrically fairly stable’ can be interpreted differently depending on who is the observer.

Of course. I just applied the principle that any UOAs with mitigating circumstances should be ignored. Seems like that's acceptable to most people in this thread.

Louie's gone fishing · Apr 25, 2006

I'd like to ask the same question, too, is that Chevron Supreme conventional oil? For such a cheap oil, it looks pretty good, acording to Amsoil.

Pablo · Apr 25, 2006

Sure Amsoil used to thicken in some applications. Is this not out in the open? I hope purely for sake of threads like this AND my rear end, Amsoil has solved the thickening issue. If you knew how many letters and emails I've sent to Amsoil!

I will say I misread the "always" used in this thread, but I did not in this thread accuse you of "hating Amsoil". I was in an extreme rush this AM, and perhaps I should have skipped posting.

I did NOT cherry pick those two UOA's - I would have posted more if I had time!!! They were simply the first two Amsoil UOA's I came across that did not involve XL series oil.

Stooge · Apr 25, 2006

This thread just continues to show there's alot of folks that really dislike Amsoil. Too bad - get over the cheesy marketing ploys of Amsoil and see that it's ONE of the best oils available.

ConfederateTyrant · Apr 25, 2006

I too sent Amsoil three e-mails regarding the thickening issue, and I only got one response when the question was not directed towards my use of Amsoil but instead had to do with thickening and shearing in general, such as causes. I even gave them the exact conditions on my oil analysis, I know I should have called them if I wanted a true answer, but oh well.

And yes, Louie's gone fishing, that is Chevron Supreme conventional, to my understanding. That is a low pour point for it to be a synthetic, even a Group III.

Stooge, good point, I have to agree.

427Z06 · Apr 25, 2006

quote:

Originally posted by Stooge:
This thread just continues to show there's alot of folks that really dislike Amsoil.

I believe a more correct interpretation of this thread is that there continues to be Amsoil zealotry. One only has to make an observation and then comment on it and immediately you're accused of being an Amsoil hater. You Amsoil supporters are your own worst enemy.

[ April 25, 2006, 08:48 PM: Message edited by: 427Z06 ]

ConfederateTyrant · Apr 25, 2006

No, I have no worst enemies, I have plenty of enemies but no worst ones. I've made the comment of Amsoil thickening many times but I still use Amsoil exclusively. Why? Because it has outperformed everything else I have used, that's why. I have no problem with the use of other oils, except when it's in my own car, that's where I draw the line. Does that make me a zealot (NOT Zealot)? No, it doesn't, because I gave others a chance and Amsoil has been my favorite.

LarryL · Apr 25, 2006

Is that Chevron Supreme dyno oil in the test. Looks like it did pretty well for an oil that you can pickup for a buck a quart or less with coupons. That's got to be a lot cheaper than Amsoil. I wonder what the difference in real world use of the two oils would be, if you ran each oil until a uoa said to change it, for the life of the motor? The Amsoil might go a bit longer but would that make up the difference in cost?

Bill · Apr 25, 2006

Using UOAs of German Castrol, I could make GC look bad, look at these UOAs for GC, it thickened like molasses...

Amsoil 10w-30 vs. the world: oil test results

Similar threads