Amsoil ACD 30/10w30 04 PSD 2500 miles on oil

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jul 15, 2002
Messages
605
Location
Mississauga, Ontario
I decided to give ACD a try to see if the viscosity improver free formula would shear less in this engine. I didn't have the guts to run it the full 5000 mile interval and chickened out at 2500 miles. Same driving conditions as the previous oils. Pleasantly surprised that the oil only sheared by .4 The iron/lead/silicon and copper numbers are up per mile but that might be a result of the formulaion? The engine didn't "feel" or sound as quiet or smooth as it did with the 5w40. I suppose the optimum oil viscosity for this engine would be somewhere around 12.
 Code:
                  XD-3  Delvac Castrol  XD-3    XD-3    XD-3    XD-3    XD-3    AmsoilDEO AmsoilACD
x	           0w40	15w40	15w40	0w30	0w30	0w30	15w40	0w30	5w40      30/10w30
Total KM's	14000km	22000km	28400km	37100km	47000km	55000	63700 	72400	160500km 164500km
Time on Fluid	8000km	8000km	6400km	8700km	9900km	8000	8700km	8700km	8000km   4000km
Time on Filter	8000km	8000km	6400km	8700km	9900km	8000	8700km 	8700km	8000km   4000km
Fluid Maint	Changed	Changed	Changed	Changed	Changed	Changed	Changed	Changed	Changed  Changed
Filter Maint	Changed	Changed	Changed	Changed	Changed	Changed	Changed	Changed	Changed  Not Changed
Iron (Fe)	45	39	50	33	27	24	21	19	8.5      5.9
Lead (Pb)	1.2	0.7	0.3	0.8	1.1	0.5	1	0	0.5      0.8
Silicon (Si)	64	31	20	16	14	11	8.7	8	5        4.3
Copper (Cu)	10	6	3.6	2.9	8.1	4.8	3.3	2.6	0.7      0.6
Chromium (Cr)	1.1	1.2	2	1.3	1.2	0.7	0.7	0.6	0.3      0.3
Nickel (Ni)	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0        0
Titanium (Ti)	0	0	0.2	0.1	0.1	0	0.1	0	0        0.1
Silver (Ag)	0.4	0.4	0.4	0.3	0.4	0	0	0	0        0
Aluminum (Al)	1.3	4.3	6.3	3.2	2.9	2.6	2.2	2	0.8      1.6
Tin (Sn)	1.3	0.9	0.2	0.5	1	0.2	0.7	0	0        0
Sodium (Na)	3.4	0.8	3.1	1.8	0.5	5.6	8.7	7	1.4      1.1
Potassium (K)	12	4.1	5.5	2.3	2.5	1.9	3.5	2.1	0        0
Boron (B)	3.6	24	7	4.3	2.6	0	4.8	1.4	2        0.9
Barium (Ba)	0.7	0.3	0.6	0.2	0.1	0.1	0.2	0.2	0.1      0
Molybdenum (Mo)	0.6	27	7.2	3.2	1.2	0.7	0.9	0.6	0.1      0.5
Magnesium (Mg)	9	315	84	27	14	9.5	8.8	9.4	5.8      8.8
Calcium (Ca)	2938	2534	2819	3003	3144	3096	3048	3350	2580     3195
Phosphorus (P)	1005	1099	1151	1026	1150	940	1077	1233	1050     1095
Zinc (Zn)	1192	1277	1277	1213	1227	1130	1205	1376	1221     1289
Sulfur (S)	3143	3313	4387	3556	3764	3526	3632	4022	3360     3669
Manganese (Mn)	1	0.8	0.8	0.6	0.5	0.3	0.4	0.4	0.1      0.1
Vanadium (V)	0	0	0.1	0	0.1	0	0.1	0	0        0.1
Fuel(%)	        3	4	3	4	5	6	5	4	1        0
Glycol	        NEG	NEG	NEG	NEG	neg	NEG	neg	neg	 neg
Soot(%)	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0        0
Oxid(PA)	63	63	163	63	68	72	68	68	181      173
Nitr(PA)	64	73	195	73	82	82	82	82	55       45
Sulf(PA)	56	56	191	56	56	56	59	59	129      126
    ZDDP	17	18	18	18	17	16	17	18	21       22
     TBN	8.06	8.19	7.31	7.42	7.31	8.01	6.65	8.8	5.14     8.17
[email protected]°C	9.8	12	11.1	10	8.9	9.2	9.6	10.8	11.3     10.1
VOA [email protected]°C	15.7	15.5	14.8	12.1	12.1	12.1	~13.5?	12.1	15.3     10.5
 


 
 
Joined
Sep 23, 2006
Messages
2,279
Location
Up here in the NorthWest
I am sure 7,500 to 10,000 miles is/could be the norm for you with this oil. Why not? Heck, I would install the Eao-88 and dump the Amsoil at 7.5...leave the filter on and do another 7.5!
 
Joined
Oct 28, 2002
Messages
51,072
Location
Everson WA - Pacific NW USA
Actually looks pretty good - you could/should have left it in longer. Compare it to the other 30's. But really the Amsoil runs have given you low wear compared to the other oils - pretty clearly. I say let either run - and show this to the guys that say stuff like "conventional oils show the same or lower wear"......
 

Quick_lude

Thread starter
Joined
Jul 15, 2002
Messages
605
Location
Mississauga, Ontario
Actually Fe has been on a downward trend since the beginning, I didn't do an analysis for almost 60,000 miles before the Amsoil. I suspect I would have gotten similar Fe with the XD-30. Since I live in Toronto, Canada, I'll stick to the 5w40 all year round, the engine is happier at start up with the 5w oil, especially in the fall/spring when I don't plug it in but over night temps hit 0 deg C.
 

dnewton3

Staff member
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
9,736
Location
Indianapolis, IN
A few comments. First, I mean no disrespect to the OP. But I have to call out some problems here. So many things go into statistical data analysis. People often overlook the need for consistency. Mileage (duration of exposure), material (brand/grade of oil) and outside influences (contamination) greatly effected these results. Talk about brand/grade schizophrenia! Eight brand/grade changes in a total of 10 reports. Hard to get a read on any particular oil performance. Can we attribute the wear metal trends to any particular oil's ability to protect? No; this has become a big melting pot for results. Even the OCI mileage has been all over the map, with as little as 4k Km to a high of nearly 10k Km! It's clear that (overall) Fe is dropping. But lead and copper have been on a roller-coaster ride. Al has had a milder ride, but still wavers. Fuel dilution caught my eye. Up to 5% and 6% in some samples? That seems high. Interestingly, it follows, rather than predates, the elevation in the lead and copper. So are the elevated readings a results of oil performance, or contamination, or what? If you (or anyone) really want to get a handle on how your lube is truly performing, you'll have to quit the merry-go-round and pick one lube and do at least 5 samples with evenly incremental OCI's. You just cannot draw any conclusions from data like this, other than the "on face value" aspect. Too many variable inputs. If Quick_lude has the time/money/ability to do UOA's, then why not do them in a manner that has statistical merit? I'm sure some will want to say "yeah, but it is what it is ..." Ok. Then ignore me. I'm a quality engineer that does statistical analysis for a living. What do I know?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 28, 2002
Messages
51,072
Location
Everson WA - Pacific NW USA
You make a good point - and honestly I didn't even see the fuel numbers.....perhaps I was blinded by the huge numbers. Quick_lude - any explanation as to the sudden drop in fuel #'s? Did something get fixed?
 

dnewton3

Staff member
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
9,736
Location
Indianapolis, IN
In no way am I trying to detract from overall joy that is BITOG or UOAs. It just is unfair to credit, or blame, any oil for a standard of performance that is just statistically unsound. I want people to be able to understand what they are seeing. If you go to the movie theater, you want to know what kind of movie you're to see. A comedy, drama, action flick? It helps you understand the frame of reference for viewing. There's always intersting points to find in reading a UOA. Just don't take these as any fair indication of true lubricant performance. Too many variables to attribute pros/cons to any one contender. Sorry if I'm a killjoy.
 
Joined
May 30, 2003
Messages
5,117
Location
Airlie Beach Australia
Hi, it should be borne in mind that the last sample was at 4k the average of all the others is 8.2kms The next UOA will be more meaningful IMHO it is wise to compare uptake rates at this stage in such a UOA
 

Quick_lude

Thread starter
Joined
Jul 15, 2002
Messages
605
Location
Mississauga, Ontario
Dnewton, if you bothered to look closely at the analysis data, you'd notice that there is an almost 90,000 km gap between my last XD-3 analysis and the first Amsoil analysis. I have been using XD-3 0w30 up until I decided to switch to Amsoil when the cost of XD-3 went up here significantly. This is why I decided to analyze Amsoil to see how much it would shear over my standard 5000 mile interval. And no, my OCI mileage is NOT all over the map, it's usually around 5000 miles but since I drive almost 600 miles over two days, I can't always change at that percise moment. I'm sorry about that, next time I'll pull over to the side of the road at exactly 5000 miles and change the oil right there, ok? Not sure about lead or copper fluctuating, I had two turbos replaced and two egr cooler failures, maybe that affected it somewhat. I'm surprised about the fuel myself, the type of driving this truck sees is always the same since I drive the same route and same type of driving every week. It's been almost two years since that 4% fuel result. I can only think of three factors that could produce lower fuel contamination, the injectors finally "broke in", I do an extra 200km of hwy driving per week, or the latest computer flash/update from Ford has finally fixed the fuel contamination due to longer amounts of idling, which I'm forced to do at work. My bet would be the reflash.
 
Joined
Nov 16, 2002
Messages
35,655
Location
NJ
 Quote:
You just cannot draw any conclusions from data like this, other than the "on face value" aspect. Too many variable inputs.
True. As with most UOA's.
 

JAG

Joined
Oct 23, 2005
Messages
5,316
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
 Quote:
You just cannot draw any conclusions from data like this, other than the "on face value" aspect. Too many variable inputs.
You can conclude that Amsoil DEO 5W-40 is much less shear stable than Amsoil ACD which is no surprise given that DEO is a 5W-40 and ACD is a 10W-30 oil with no viscosity index improvers. I'm sure there are other "concludables" (new word?) but I'm too lazy right now to pick them out. There are also "unconcludables" (man I love new words).
 

dnewton3

Staff member
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
9,736
Location
Indianapolis, IN
JAG - I agree. That's the "on face value" part I contend is fair to judge. Certain things like fuel dilution, coolant contamination, viscosity, flashpoint, etc. can be judged against desired points of reference. For example, we would want the vis and FP to stay as close to the starting point as possible. Or, any contamination would be desired to be at or near zero. This is where a UOA can be beneficial to anyone at any time, regardless of brand/grade/spec used. However, the point I was trying to get across is that when so many different brands/grades/specs are used in differt samples, (with such variance in exposure (mileage)), you cannot compare the wear-protection characteristics and results, with any expectation of statistical viability, due to the inconsistent nature of the inputs. As an example, you can say that one of the XD products held it's viscosity within xx% of it's starting point (from a known value of VOA from the same lot), but you cannot say it did better/worse than an Amsoil product, because they are not held in statisicially equal environments. Further, the fuel dilution is likely to have effected these samples and their ability to "protect" against wear. You can't fairly judge something when you compromise it's operating environment. Also, to get any viable trend or range, you should run at least 5, if not 7, sequential samples for the exact same duration, of the same brand/grade/spec. Then, you can run some purge cycles and only then start with another contender. The reason this doesn't happen often? It's very expensive and time consuming; we BITOGers don't have the resources like large companies do. Yet, some people here would to praise/punish a lubricant's performance based upon one single analysis, ignoring the fact that it's manufacturer probably ran hundreds of tests for hundreds of thousands of miles, with much more clinical care for the parameters. In a nutshell, you can use these samples to judge how a fluid is peforming to an accepted or desired point of reference, relative to itself. But, you cannot compare/contrast the fluid(s) performance relative to other samples, or make any conclusions that brand/grade/spec "XYZ" is better or worse than "ABC".
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top