Amsoil Burning

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by RDY4WAR
Does AMSOIL Signature Series contain ester? Oil consumption can sometimes increase with oils containing ester due to ester clinging to the cylinder walls and transporting past the rings.

It does have Ester in it to balance the PAO and to carry the additive package.

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by ridgerunner
Not bashing so... I have tried AMSOIL Signature Series many times for the past 10 yrs in my vehicles. 2008 Nissan Extera w 4.0 and 2003 GransAm 3400 engine drank 5-30 SS like water (GrandAm loved dino, it even liked 10-40 circa 1985 QS)! 2013 Subaru 2.5 n/a drinks 0-20 SS. 2010 Ram 2500 5.7 Hemi sips it pretty good too. So far the only engine I have that likes SS is my 1994 4.0 Ford Ranger which has 4qts of 0-20 SS and 1 qt of Amsoil SAE 30. I run 0-40 Amsoil in my ATV hard without any issues. Why do most of my engines drink SS? They all have low NOACKs.🤷â€â™‚ï¸

Use something else then... If I had a vehicle drinking oil I would find the cheapest that met the spec and feed it that instead.

That said even my Santa Fe with 535,000km (300K miles) didn't use any amount off the dipstick and it saw Signature Series most of its life.

 

[ridgerunner]

Originally Posted by StevieC
Originally Posted by ridgerunner
Not bashing so... I have tried AMSOIL Signature Series many times for the past 10 yrs in my vehicles. 2008 Nissan Extera w 4.0 and 2003 GransAm 3400 engine drank 5-30 SS like water (GrandAm loved dino, it even liked 10-40 circa 1985 QS)! 2013 Subaru 2.5 n/a drinks 0-20 SS. 2010 Ram 2500 5.7 Hemi sips it pretty good too. So far the only engine I have that likes SS is my 1994 4.0 Ford Ranger which has 4qts of 0-20 SS and 1 qt of Amsoil SAE 30. I run 0-40 Amsoil in my ATV hard without any issues. Why do most of my engines drink SS? They all have low NOACKs.🤷â€â™‚ï¸

Use something else then... If I had a vehicle drinking oil I would find the cheapest that met the spec and feed it that instead.

That said even my Santa Fe with 535,000km (300K miles) didn't use any amount off the dipstick and it saw Signature Series most of its life.


I agree to use something else, no arguement here (and I like to argue/debate). Just curious as to the SS consumption over the yrs and in many different engines. I have lots of SS in 3 flavors so I will be using it for sure regardless. If my SS stash continues to burn, I will be switching for sure but not until it is gone.

 

[JMJNet]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by JMJNet
Sounds like your cars are not happy with SS?
Not all car are designed for PAO synthetic.




Why would you pin-point the PAO? As I noted, our Expedition consumed SS but not AFE 0w-30, which has a significant amount of PAO in the base, or the Motul 0w-30, which is an entirely PAO-based lube.


It is just a speculation.

OP said that it is ok when using Dino?

Somebody also said that their car burns more with Mobil 1 then Valvoline synthetic.

Like everybody said, find something that works.
Everything I and everybody else said are just speculation since we have no way of knowing what exactly in the oil (PAO, Base 3, additive, etc.).

 

[benjy]

ALL lower viscosity oils have lighter base oils in the formula that burn off or blow thru, a 5 or 10 W-30 off the shelf synthetic may have a better Noack + of course a thicker film. who knows what Amsoil is blending in their !!!! oils today, they say nothing + answer no questions. beside engine wear poor original tolerances can be an issue, as example my girlfriends NEW 13 Malibu was taking a qt of dexos I spec oil in 1500 miles from new, changing to 10W30 fake synthetic cut it a lot, but pushing only 60 thou it got worse enter euro 5-40 fake synthetic its doing good at a qt in 5 thou, its DI which is harder on oil + many newer engines using low tension oil rings are having issues like the mentioned subies, use what works + change in a timely manner depending on driving habits.

 

[buster]

I've found that oil consumption often has little to do with Noack volatility. Oil consumption can be caused by many different things from the oil control ring type, how worn the rings are, viscosity, and even the chemistry (viscosity index improver type). Some engines will also consume oil regardless of the oil type and viscosity.

Both my 05 Accord and Toyota 1.8 drank oil from new to when I sold them both (both had 180k miles on them and ran like new). In those two cars, it was simply the oil control rings and low tension piston rings. Viscosity and Noack played no role at all.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted by buster
I've found that oil consumption often has little to do with Noack volatility. Oil consumption can be caused by many different things from the oil control ring type, how worn the rings are, viscosity, and even the chemistry (viscosity index improver type). Some engines will also consume oil regardless of the oil type and viscosity.

Both my 05 Accord and Toyota 1.8 drank oil from new to when I sold them both (both had 180k miles on them and ran like new). In those two cars, it was simply the oil control rings and low tension piston rings. Viscosity and Noack played no role at all.


I agree and think way too much emphasis is placed on NOACK. If the oil is getting into the combustion chamber it is leaving out the exhaust, no matter what the NOACK is.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by JMJNet
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by JMJNet
Sounds like your cars are not happy with SS?
Not all car are designed for PAO synthetic.




Why would you pin-point the PAO? As I noted, our Expedition consumed SS but not AFE 0w-30, which has a significant amount of PAO in the base, or the Motul 0w-30, which is an entirely PAO-based lube.


It is just a speculation.

OP said that it is ok when using Dino?

Somebody also said that their car burns more with Mobil 1 then Valvoline synthetic.

Like everybody said, find something that works.
Everything I and everybody else said are just speculation since we have no way of knowing what exactly in the oil (PAO, Base 3, additive, etc.).


Well we know that the AMSOIL product is mostly PAO based, the exact percentage of course we don't.

My point, as per my earlier post in the thread, is that I went through the same issue with our old Expedition and switching to another oil, also utilizing significant quantities of PAO, eliminated the issue entirely. Trying another oil, one that's majority PAO, also didn't cause the issue to return. So in my experience, PAO content didn't have an impact on the consumption, it had to be something else.

So, I was curious as to why you thought it might be the PAO content, thinking you had perhaps had an experience that was contrary to mine.

 

[JAG]

Based on my experience, I generally expect an oil with significant ester content to have an increased chance of higher oil consumption than one with less or no ester. The same applies to an engine that has always used non-synthetics and then starts getting a "higher quality" oil. It doesn't always happen though. It's mysterious and I don't know the specific causes.

 

[bbhero]

Originally Posted by demarpaint
Originally Posted by buster
I've found that oil consumption often has little to do with Noack volatility. Oil consumption can be caused by many different things from the oil control ring type, how worn the rings are, viscosity, and even the chemistry (viscosity index improver type). Some engines will also consume oil regardless of the oil type and viscosity.

Both my 05 Accord and Toyota 1.8 drank oil from new to when I sold them both (both had 180k miles on them and ran like new). In those two cars, it was simply the oil control rings and low tension piston rings. Viscosity and Noack played no role at all.


I agree and think way too much emphasis is placed on NOACK. If the oil is getting into the combustion chamber it is leaving out the exhaust, no matter what the NOACK is.



I agree... Great, great post by buster.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by JAG
Based on my experience, I generally expect an oil with significant ester content to have an increased chance of higher oil consumption than one with less or no ester. The same applies to an engine that has always used non-synthetics and then starts getting a "higher quality" oil. It doesn't always happen though. It's mysterious and I don't know the specific causes.


Comically, Redline, which was supposed to be high(er) in ester content, didn't consume in the Expedition either

It was only the AMSOIL that did for whatever reason

 

[JAG]

Quote
Comically, Redline, which was supposed to be high(er) in ester content, didn't consume in the Expedition either wink It was only the AMSOIL that did for whatever reason shrug

Weird. I once had a 2.5L Subaru Impreza that burned around 0.4 qts/1000 miles using typical synthetics. It burned almost twice that using Red Line. It was repeatable switching from the one group to Red Line, back and forth several times. It also stayed that way with multiple, back-to-back OCIs of Red Line. That was in 2002 or so.

With my Ranger, the only time it burned oil was when I used AMSOIL Signature Series. Prior to that it got non-synthetic from the used car dealer, then I used Mobil 1. I still have AMSOIL Signature Series so I will use that up and I'll see if it consumes it again.

 

[DGXR]

Originally Posted by buster
I've found that oil consumption often has little to do with Noack volatility. Oil consumption can be caused by many different things from the oil control ring type, how worn the rings are, viscosity, and even the chemistry (viscosity index improver type). Some engines will also consume oil regardless of the oil type and viscosity.

Both my 05 Accord and Toyota 1.8 drank oil from new to when I sold them both (both had 180k miles on them and ran like new). In those two cars, it was simply the oil control rings and low tension piston rings. Viscosity and Noack played no role at all.


Apparently the PCV system can also play a part in oil consumption, so I have heard many times in these forums... ?

 

[ridgerunner]

Ok got to thinking this morning...group 4 PAO's molocules are suppose to be spherical and uniform in size to reduce friction, kinda like ball bearings or round gravel right? If true then wouldn't the "stuff" between these spheres move through more easily? Think of water moving through uniform sand or gravel. Now group 1-3 oil molocules are more random in size and are more angular thus packing together tighter lessening the "stuff" from moving through it. Is this a fair analogy or am I full of it???

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by ridgerunner
Ok got to thinking this morning...group 4 PAO's molocules are suppose to be spherical and uniform in size to reduce friction, kinda like ball bearings or round gravel right? If true then wouldn't the "stuff" between these spheres move through more easily? Think of water moving through uniform sand or gravel. Now group 1-3 oil molocules are more random in size and are more angular thus packing together tighter lessening the "stuff" from moving through it. Is this a fair analogy or am I full of it???


I think you might be thinking about this grossly over-simplified diagram from Mobil?

 

[ridgerunner]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by ridgerunner
Ok got to thinking this morning...group 4 PAO's molocules are suppose to be spherical and uniform in size to reduce friction, kinda like ball bearings or round gravel right? If true then wouldn't the "stuff" between these spheres move through more easily? Think of water moving through uniform sand or gravel. Now group 1-3 oil molocules are more random in size and are more angular thus packing together tighter lessening the "stuff" from moving through it. Is this a fair analogy or am I full of it???


I think you might be thinking about this grossly over-simplified diagram from Mobil?

I may have been thinking about one of Amsoil's Dan Watson's youtube videos.

 

[RDY4WAR]

It could also be that the more uniform molecules of PAO could mean a more stable and consistent oil film for the rings to ride on. However, it also means more oil getting by the rings. A bit of a trade-off of oil consumption for better protection and less friction.

I'm just speculating.

 

[OilUzer]

Originally Posted by JAG
Based on my experience, I generally expect an oil with significant ester content to have an increased chance of higher oil consumption than one with less or no ester. The same applies to an engine that has always used non-synthetics and then starts getting a "higher quality" oil. It doesn't always happen though. It's mysterious and I don't know the specific causes.


I wonder if it has to do with different seal material and/or their conditions (ie new vs. older cars) and the interaction with higher level synthetic oils.

 

[UNC063]

Originally Posted by StevieC
Originally Posted by ridgerunner
Not bashing so... I have tried AMSOIL Signature Series many times for the past 10 yrs in my vehicles. 2008 Nissan Extera w 4.0 and 2003 GransAm 3400 engine drank 5-30 SS like water (GrandAm loved dino, it even liked 10-40 circa 1985 QS)! 2013 Subaru 2.5 n/a drinks 0-20 SS. 2010 Ram 2500 5.7 Hemi sips it pretty good too. So far the only engine I have that likes SS is my 1994 4.0 Ford Ranger which has 4qts of 0-20 SS and 1 qt of Amsoil SAE 30. I run 0-40 Amsoil in my ATV hard without any issues. Why do most of my engines drink SS? They all have low NOACKs.🤷â€â™‚ï¸

Use something else then... If I had a vehicle drinking oil I would find the cheapest that met the spec and feed it that instead.

That said even my Santa Fe with 535,000km (300K miles) didn't use any amount off the dipstick and it saw Signature Series most of its life.


+1

 

[burla]

If your engine is using oil look at high thhs oils and ignore NOACK. One of my best vehicles ever was a ford, used a quart if oil every 3k miles for 11 years, no big deal. Use a high hths oil, it may burn less, but either way I wouldn't worry.