Amsoil 5w-30 vs Mobil 1, 5w-30 supersyn

[Dick in Falls Church]

>>>Foam Air Filters that degrade and crumble within 2 years,

Since AMSOIL put the foam filters on the market, the only ones I've seen that crumbled within a couple of years were in cars with some mechanical (usually EGR) problem--usually GM. I recently put a new one in my Dodge van--old was still serviceable, but had been in use 3 years in old van and another 4 years in current.

>>>Auto Trans fluid that meets both GM and Chrysler specs (totally different frictional coefficients)

Fact is it has been tested against the requirements and passes with flying colors--verified by Lubrizol. Also does Ford Mercon and Mercon V, as well as a couple more.

>>>Propylene Glycol antifreeze (they jumped on the bandwagon when it was the "environmental thing to do")- overpriced and not recommended by many automakers today,

Actually came out before the Sierra. Yep, it is a bit pricey. Some truck lines buy it by the 55 gallon drum, because if they have a spill they won't get socked with a hazardous cleanup bill.
Some marinas use it for the same reason--they can dump it in the water without the water police fining them. As far as not recommended--how many decades was synthetic available and not "recommended" by automakers? And still not???

>>Windshield Protectant that isn't any better than Rain-X

Guess that is in the eyes of the beholder. It isn't a high volume product, but I know one trucker that found it much better than Rain-X in misty conditions.

>>>a whole range of Motor Oils that claim 25k or 35k change intervals (not)

Rcommendations based upon thousands of oil analyses. I've run it that way myself for over 25 years with nary a problem. Note that the recommendation is for non-diesel/non-turbo engines in sound mechanical condition. The time limit is also a year, without oil analysis. Obviously, some common sense is also required.

>>Might want to throw in the vitamins and fertilizer while we're at it!

Tried the fertilizer? Some commercial growers have found it to be very good and cost effective.
If you think selling synthetic lubes is difficult, try to learn enough to be able to be conversant in organic fertilizers.

 

[Spector]

I had the foam filters on two cars, both fell apart after a few years from the heat in the engine compartment. Even more telling, my oil analysis had better silicon numbers when I returned to the OEM paper elements. My overall main complaint is with teh unaltering hype on 25,000 mile changes when in fact maybe 1 % of the population puts on 25,000 miles in one year and I have yet to see an acceptable analysis of a car at 25,000 miles. This is totally misleading but to get an Amsoil dealer to admit this is like pulling teeth! Warranty is useless too but that's another issue.

Yep, I use their oil and ATF. RedLine makes a better gear oil and OEM air filters are also better. Bosch wipers (that Amsoil now seels) are poor products also IMHO.

 

[Patman]

It's not physically the way Amsoil sells it's oil that pisses people off, it's the attitudes of some of the dealers that this oil is the only good oil on the planet, and it's also the fact that so many dealers are very clueless. Also, the 25k oil change interval is very misleading. Only in rare cases is the oil actually good to go this long.

 

[Spector]

What I want to see is the same engine or two duplicate engines same mileage on both and same miles on oil running both oils and oil analysis results and every wear metal and additive etc. published for REAL WORLD results. These bench tests, although indicators, are not real world. Ideally for me I would love to see these oils compared in a 1999 Toyota Camry V6 engine!

As quoted from above post!
In the past 25 years of using and selling AMSOIL, I've found that in every case that they publish data on a competitors product, the data has been provided by an independent lab (confirming what their own lab has shown

Okay, let's have the name of the lab please?

[ November 15, 2002, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: Spector ]

 

[TooSlick]

Patman,

I think you comments are very interesting ....

You'll find the majority of folks buy Mobil 1 at Walmart, Costco, etc. Try finding ANYBODY who works at one of those stores who knows the first thing about synthetic lubes, basestocks, additives, oil specs, etc. The customer is totally on their own if they have a problem. Now if you own a fleet of 200, Class 8 trucks, I'm quite sure you can get a lube engineer from ExxonMobil to help you out with questions about Delvac 1 ...

 

[FowVay]

I too have had a Amsoil foam filter come apart on the first washing. Amsoil denied any liability on their part and left me with a $50 piece of disintegrated foam. Nice warranty they have.

 

[Pablo]

quote:

---

to get an Amsoil dealer to admit this is like pulling teeth

---

Spector - I am a (talking proof) - I don't just autoload the BS on the 25-35K. In fact I DON'T even push it.

As for the foam filters - I wonder if there was a bad batch or something a few years back. I swear to you - I have three cars - each one has a filter for 4 years (washed at least once a year) and they are still perfect. I have sold 100's. I STB I sell more AF's (zip margin) than I do oil! And never has someone come back with a crumbly one. If they did I would get and give them a 100% refund (engine fires, etc excluded - be reasonable

)

As for high Si - I almost always get my oil analyzed (at not just at OAI) and my Si seems lowish.

 

[TooSlick]

I've run Amsoil out beyond 20,000 miles on 3-4 occasions, in fact I posted a 21,000 mile analysis for my 2.4L Tacoma some time back. I actually ran this oil for two full years with just two filter changes, so I consider that to be an overtest. Keep in mind the recommendation is 25k or 1 year - WHICHEVER COMES FIRST, in a mechanically sound engine. I would consider the 25k change in the same light as running 7500 miles on an average petroleum oil. You can do it under ideal conditions, but in most cases a shorter drain interval is warranted.

The best thing is to test the oil several times after 7500 miles and see how it's holding up and how much margin you have at that point.

TooSlick

[ November 20, 2002, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: TooSlick ]

 

[dragboat]

Back to the topic post.!

Tooslick,
IMO you should have known the differences in M1's flash point and TBN ,pour point before posting those numbers like you did

That was the first formulation that many did not ever see and was w/o moly. Even the used oil samples have higher TBN than what you posted for Mobil and that I think you were aware of as well imo.> refer to posts in the analysis section

Mobil has the ability to step up the SS performance as well if needed and already has. They could at anytime step up signifigantly I would presume and still sell their oil to the masses for less money that for the most part are not willing to change a oil filter at 7500 miles for example and top off with a quart or so of oil when the same time, money for oil filter and labor has just been put out less a few quarts of oil to do a complete oil change.

The board is all about cussing, dicussing and bringing facts and opinions to the surface. IMO the facts were biased towards the advertised topic oil without merit due to comparing to a oil that is not currently formulated nor available and has not been for months if ever.

In the future,I ask the more knowledable here to make certain when they lay some numbers for comparison down for others to read,,,,please make certain they are correct prior to posting because many here rely on facts, and facts were clearly not posted in the topic post imo.

[ November 17, 2002, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: dragboat ]

 

[TooSlick]

Dragboat,

It is my understanding that this was a recent test of the supersyn. I could be wrong, so I'll check up on that specific point. I do think that the tested TBN for the Supersyn seems low, compared to oil analysis results I've seen on this forum. However, the rest of the physical properties look about right to me. I didn't see anything about additive levels in this comparison, so I don't know if this batch they tested has the 80 ppm of moly or not? I would be surprised if this made any difference in the four ball wear test results and it certainly would not effect the Noack Volatility results. If making an excellent formulation was as easy as adding a small amount of moly, everyone would be doing it.

I find the difference in high temp evaporation to be the most significant result to come out of this bench testing. Quite frankly I can't understand how there can be so much difference, if indeed Mobil is using straight PAO and not blending in some Group III basestock as well? One of the main goals of the SL and GF-3 upgrades was to reduce Noack Volatility to control oil consumption. This was done to reduce the amount of phosphorus that is burned and that degrades oxygen sensors and Cats ....I would have expected the supersyn to be better than the old tri-synthetic in this regard.

I actually think highly of Mobils synthetics - their Delvac 1, 5w-40 in particular is an extremely well formulated oil that holds up like a rock in diesel engines.

TooSlick

 

[BOBISTHEOILGUY]

TooSlick,

Don't take this personally, but this is where you fail miserably at understanding oils.

"I didn't see anything about additive levels in this comparison, so I don't know if this batch they tested has the 80 ppm of moly or not? I would be surprised if this made any difference in the four ball wear test results and it certainly would not effect the Noack Volatility results. If making an excellent formulation was as easy as adding a small amount of moly, everyone would be doing it."

"I find the difference in high temp evaporation to be the most significant result to come out of this bench testing. Quite frankly I can't understand how there can be so much difference, if indeed Mobil is using straight PAO and not blending in some Group III base-stock as well? "

The key word here is BENCH TESTING. What you do and have demonstrated on the board here is your keen ability to pick apart tech data sheets and expose the higher qualities of amsoil based on these bench tests. What you are failing at is being able to see past these numbers as each one of these tests only are designed to demonstrate the oils ability with just that one aspect. That test will not include how another variable in the mix will effect it's over all performance in the real life situation. Example..

The TBN issue... you are aware that higher tbns in an oil is not relative to how well it holds up?. I'd bet that M1's SS oil with the 80 ppms of moly will actually out perform amsoils 12 tbn. Ok, that's not what the numbers show, I know, but you failed to understand that just because amsoil is loaded down with higher levels of detergents to clean the acids out of the oil, no where does it show on any tech data sheet the antioxidant levels used in that oil where it will neutralize the acids before the detergents have to take part in cleaning up, therefore while amsoil is cleaning up the acid's and lowering in tbn, m1 will be neutralizing the acids and still maintaining it's original tbn because it isn't requiring much if any detergents to clean acids because acids haven't started to form because of the antioxidant levels.

OK, now lets look at the noak issue which appears to be a biggy for amsoil... I'm sure you have noticed that Schaffers uses a lower grade base stock than m1 or amsoil, and that it's noak isn't on paper looking as good as either of those two, but why is it that schaeffers doesn't burn off? The noack tests is an extreme heat test, passing beyond any measure of heat levels that occur in a real engine application. Now, granted oil oxidation levels would increase due to higher heats, now interesting you pointed out how is it that moly could have any bearing on this? In this case of noack, if you can reduce friction with moly, this provides less stress on the oil from frictional heat, thus you don't need near the higher # noack, but the noack test cannot show how the moly would effect the noack because it's a heat source developed by fire and not by friction therefore it mis leads you into thinking that the higher base stock is needed and if you don't have frictional additives such as moly, you do need a higher base stock to provide the better noack to match the blend of base/moly oil.

I may be wrong but somewhere I think someone mentioned that the type of moly used in schaeffers and m1(?) provides antioxidants that fights the acids from starting therefore, higher levels of tbn are not needed.

Mainly, my point here is, tech data sheets are ok to get some basic reference but you seem to always use it as a way to boast up amsoil and qualify an oil based strictly on these numbers and I find you are strongly mis lead because they cannot nor do they provide the true picture on the quality of the oil. A Prime example has been that many have looked at Schaeffers as an ok oil but until we started to show wear and drain analysis, it started to show something way different that those numbers displayed.

Another example of TD sheets not showing the picture, our 267 gear oil, looks ok, but when you really look at it, you'll find that it provides better than normal protection due to the fact it has a climbing agent that allows better adhesion to the surface and is less reliant on being splashed to lubricate unlike most all gear oils that needs to be splashed to lubricate, and also the temp drop is due to the moly barrier additive that isn't normally present in most gear oils yet the td sheet numbers only show base oil stats but not how the moly effects the heat which in turn effects the base oil.

So, in closing, I think everyone looking at td sheets should strongly keep in mind that this is not a true reflection on quality of oil but more designed to reflect its basic parameters for matching one oil brand to another. This is where a TD sheet becomes an asset in comparing if one oil is meeting min standard set by the other for cross over purposes. That is why most don't bother putting up more data on TD sheets as it isn't needed to do a cross ref. This is one area I like about schaeffers is I have yet to see any other company out there providing as much data on a td sheet than they do.

This is why you'll notice that many companies will also focus on just a couple of points they excel in on the td #'s as their primary selling point.

Oh, one last one, look at the efficiency ratings of these oil filters, I myself, am finding out that just because one is more efficient, and that it provides better cleaning of the oil, doesn't mean that it is better in all situations and give lower wear #'s. It's the situation you use it for and what type of oil, vers how many miles and such but to look at the #'s, you'd think it is the most effective oil filter but how effective can it be if it has more restriction and causes the engine to go into bypass therefore it's not doing it's job? Again, Technical data is great for comparisons for cross over info but in real life application, you'll find that not is it that the higher the quality on paper does it perform as such.

I'm stepping off my soap box sorry.

 

[TooSlick]

Bob,

With all due respect, there is a strong correlation between Noack Volatility and oil consumption in actual service - it is much better than comparing flash points in this regard. This is exactly who Noack limits were tightened for the API SL and CI-4 specifications. To reduce oil burning and exhaust emissions ....

The reason why they haven't been tightened even further is that it would basically eliminate the use of Group I and Group II petroleum oils for use as lubricant basestocks ....

Watch what a big fight there is over this issue when limits for GF-4, gas engine oils start being debated in committee.

Ted

[ November 19, 2002, 07:39 PM: Message edited by: TooSlick ]

 

[Mike_dup1]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patman:
It's not physically the way Amsoil sells it's oil that pisses people off, it's the attitudes of some of the dealers that this oil is the only good oil on the planet, and it's also the fact that so many dealers are very clueless. Also, the 25k oil change interval is very misleading. Only in rare cases is the oil actually good to go this long.

---

That can be said for anyone selling any kind of product. Howe about the car dealers and car companys? They are always saying they have the best vehicle. Most of the people blasting Amsoil are anti-everything they don't agree with or like. I have used the products in all my equipment for many years (25 to be exact) and nothing anyone will ever say will convince me they are not everything they are advertised to be. I have them in my 2001 GMC 4x4 Ext cab and my 2002 Ram Air Trans Am.

In 25 yrs I have never had any engine related issue with any of my vehicles. One of the big GM dealers here sells a lot Amsoil products and they recommended I use it in my 2001 truck. In 1984 I purchased a 3.5 HP Sears Crafteman lawn mower. I still have that today and using amsoil 10W-40 since the day I brought it home, I have chaged oil about 3 x in all this time just waiting for the lawnmover to self destruct but it has not happened.

All the arguing over this test and that spec. proves nothing to me. Its just opinion and opinions are like A-Hole's, everyone has one.

Amsoil is a small privately owned company, not a big vast maze like Mobil/Exxon. Amsoil must be doing something right because for what I see their products sales are skyrocketing.

IMHO

[ November 18, 2002, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: Mike ]

 

[vettenuts]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TooSlick:
Ken,

The regular Amsoil 5w-30 and 10w-30 formulations now meet the ACEA A3/B3/B4 specs - the latest packaging on the quart and gallons jugs now shows this - I just got in a couple of cases of the 0w-30 and 10w-30 for one of my local retail accounts. They also meet the factory fill requirements of Porsche,BMW and Mercedes 229.3. The Series 2000, 0w-30 also meets these same specs ....The XL-7500 series stuff is still ACEA A1/B1 rated ....

Hence my comment about reformulating these products ....

TooSlick

---

What is the "A3" spec? My car requires this.

Thanks

 

[TooSlick]

Vettnuts,

The ACEA "A3" specification is the most stringent gas engine requirement for European gasoline engines. It is basically, a long drain, stay in grade specification. If you go to the 3w.Lubrizol.com website, you can see the entire test matrix.

One key feature of this spec is that it requires a high temp/high shear viscosity of at least 3.5 Centipoise @ 150C/302F. The intent is to provide wear protection under very high temp and high load conditions. Cruising @ 120 mph on the Autobahn for example, or climbing steep mountain grades ....

The Mobil 1, 0w-40 does meet the ACEA A3 spec, but their 0w-30/5w-30/10w-30 oils are too thin to do so. They have HT/HS viscosities ranging from 3.0 Cp for the 0w-30 to 3.2 Cp for the 10w-30. This is done to maximize fuel efficiency for the US market.

 

[msparks]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hapuna Beach:
Hi Westex,

Propylene Glycol antifreeze (they jumped on the bandwagon when it was the "environmental thing to do")- overpriced and not recommended by many automakers today,

---

Actually if you knew anything about coolant you would know that propelene coolant is some pretty amazing stuff.

If you care to educate yourself:
http://www.evanscooling.com/index2.html

THE BENEFITS OF EVANS NPG+ COOLANT FOR DIESEL AND HEAVY DUTY ENGINES

TESTED 500,000 MILES WITHOUT COOLANT CHANGES OR SCA's
ENDS COOLANT MAINTENANCE AND EXPENSE
ELIMINATES CAVITATION OF CYLINDER LINERS OR PUMPS
ELIMINATES NEED FOR SUPPLEMENTARY COOLANT ADDITIVES
IMPROVES CONTROL OF METAL TEMPERATURES
ELIMINATES SYSTEM SCALING
IMPROVES FUEL ECONOMY
PROVIDES LOW, OR NO-PRESSURE SYSTEM
LENGTHENS LIFE OF HOSES
REDUCES CORROSION
REDUCES EMISSIONS
LENGTHENS LIFE OF ENGINE
STOPS COOLING SYSTEM ELECTROLYSIS
EXTENDS LIFE OF RADIATOR AND COOLANT PUMP
REDUCES ENGINE NOISE
ESSENTIALLY NON-TOXIC

BTW, I don't sell much of the coolant either, when I get all the folks educated on good oil and filters then I will work on coolant!!

 

[Dick in Falls Church]

>>>BTW, I don't sell much of the coolant either, when I get all the folks educated on good oil and filters then I will work on coolant!!

Well, AMSOIL has been trying to educate folks for 30 years, and Mobil for about 25, so I guess maybe your coolant sales will be a bit slow for a while...

 

[MolaKule]

Pablo,

"I wonder if the erectile stuff really works?"

I would certainly only use a non-detergent, SAE 20, API SA cert. oil to test with this product.