Amsoil- Base Stock Blends

[buster]

When comparing oils, we always go off of UOA's and VOA's. It's been noted that a VOA will show every metallic element an oil contains. When you read a product description of an Amsoil product, they always refer to base stock blend. We know Amsoil and M1 are PAO based oils. So as of recently I've noticed Amsoil's additive package is on the weak side, however, it shows excellent numbers, which is all that matters. Could Amsoil be engineering their base stocks differently and relying more on them then other synthetics? This quote is from Tooslick awhile back:

quote:

---

Amsoil uses oil soluble types of FM's .... Most of these compounds DON'T show up on oil analysis, as they are part of the basestock blend. These "might" include such compounds as organic fatty acids, amides, high molecular weight organic phosphorus and phosphoric acid esters.

---

Now is this something that all PAO based oils contain? I bring this up bc an Amsoil tech told me that additive packages are the weak link in any oil and that Amsoil focuses on the base stock. Now this could mean, they just use a high quality PAO vs a Grp III. So when you think of Amsoil's additive package, which doesn't contain any Moly and hardly and boron or Calcium, there must be something else to their oils. Any ideas?

[ January 27, 2004, 08:30 PM: Message edited by: buster ]

 

[Mobil2]

Doesn't Amsoil Series 2000 and 3000 use lots of additives?

Also, from the initial look at the M1 Racing 0w30 it just looks like the regular 0w30 with more additives.

 

[MolaKule]

quote:

---

Now is this something that all PAO based oils contain? I bring this up bc an Amsoil tech told me that additive packages are the weak link in any oil and that Amsoil focuses on the base stock. Now this could mean, they just use a high quality PAO vs a Grp III. So when you think of Amsoil's additive package, which doesn't contain any Moly and hardly and boron or Calcium, there must be something else to their oils. Any ideas?

---

When formulating engine oils, you must consider the base AND the additive package as one contiguous unit. Amsoil, Redline, Mobil and others are using all kinds of new additives as friction modification and anti-wear agents. Boron esters and concentrated calcium complexes (3000 ppm) will boost the anti-wear capabilities of any oil.

For example if you mix a PAO 4 with a PAO 100 in the ratio of 78/22% you get an 8.5 cSt oil. Or, one can mix various other PAO viscosities to achieve any combination of viscosities you want. You could also use a 3.2 cSt ester with a PAO 100 and get an 8.0 cSt oil, using a 75/25 blend.
The point is, there are umpteen combinations of ways to make a base oil with the various bases available; only limited by imagination and cost.

Likewise, once you have decided on the base oil, then you select the additive package that works best with the types and viscosities of base oils. Then you make lab (bench) tests and then do fleet tests to determine the validity of your total package. Then you "tweek" the add pack from the data of all the tests and then release it.

[BTW, most of the additives being used today in OTC oils are mostly early 1990 technologies resulting from research of that era. As new chemistry/tribology research progresses, you will see (won't see) more exotic adds and base oils.]


Each chemist or blender has his/her own philosophies about how best to blend an oil, based on academic training and experience.

 

[msparks]

quote:

---

Originally posted by buster:
So as of recently I've noticed Amsoil's additive package is on the weak side, however, it shows excellent numbers, which is all that matters. Could Amsoil be engineering their base stocks differently and relying more on them then other synthetics?

---

In what profession opinion can you say that Amsoils additive package is weak?? Do you work for lubrizol or Infinium, or Ethyl???

I sell Amsoil but I cannot tell you whether it's weak or not. From my many training programs that I've been to with Amsoil, it's my understandin that Amsoil uses the best additives regardless of cost. Which is why they sell some oils for $9 a quart.

 

[MolaKule]

I think what Buster is saying is that he interpreted the Amsoil person's comments to say that the additive package was the weak link in formulating an oil.

I am simply saying that you can't separate the base oil and additive package.

A weak base oil selection would be detrimental as would a poor additive package.

I do not think that higher tier oils use poor additive packages, otherwise, problems would arise and the news would spread like wildfire.

The OTC oil companies use base stocks/additives that yield them the highest profit while giving a certain measure of performance.

[ January 28, 2004, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]

 

[buster]

Thanks kule as always for the explanation.

msparks, don't take it personel.

What I have been getting at has been thrown around for awhile. In another thread you said Mobil 1 is an average oil. This is what I'm looking at:

Mobil 1

ZDDP 800/900
Boron 200+ppm Calcium 3000+ppm
Moly 80ppm
PAO


Amsoil

ZDDP 900/1100 (varies)
Boron 35ppm
Calcium 2000ppm
Moly Zero
PAO


This is what made me think that Amsoil adding more to the base stock. Amsoil told me that they emphasize the base stock and that ANY additive package is the weak link in ANY oil. So I was assuming they must blend (obviously based on Molekule's excellent answer) differently.

[ January 28, 2004, 06:27 PM: Message edited by: buster ]

 

[buster]

This is whay Amsoil had to say about this issue:

quote:

---

In response to your inquiry, actually our anti-wear chemistry is pretty straightforward. Because some chemistries don’t hold up well with our extended service life, we stay with a fairly traditional additive chemistry.

---

I'm not trying to knock Amsoil, but with the recent VOA's of their ASL/ATM, I've wondered about their additive package. This lead me to think that more emphasis is in the base stock. It's clear in my mind that Amsoil builds oils for the long haul and does a great job, but for performance such as a high HP Vette, a Redline would be better suited with it's polyolester base and moly.

[ January 29, 2004, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: buster ]

 

[therion]

quote:

---

Originally posted by buster:
This is whay Amsoil had to say about this issue:

quote:

---

In response to your inquiry, actually our anti-wear chemistry is pretty straightforward. Because some chemistries don’t hold up well with our extended service life, we stay with a fairly traditional additive chemistry.

---

I'm not trying to knock Amsoil, but with the recent VOA's of their ASL/ATM, I've wondered about their additive package. This lead me to think that more emphasis is in the base stock. It's clear in my mind that Amsoil builds oils for the long haul and does a great job, but for performance such as a high HP Vette, a Redline would be better suited with it's polyolester base and moly.

---

**** so my interpretation of that is that they sacrificed alittle bit of anti-wear for extended intervals.. bahh!

 

[buster]

quote:

---

**** so my interpretation of that is that they sacrificed alittle bit of anti-wear for extended intervals.. bahh!

---

I guess it's all about balance. Can a good racing/performance oil make a good extended drain oil etc.? S2k is a good combo of this.

[ January 29, 2004, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: buster ]