Amsoil & Certifications

[Pablo]

Amsoil tried that for a few years when they had the MB certs on AFL. They just dropped the cert without any formality.

I do know Amsoil is running a new motor oil evaluation for public release some time in the future.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
Amsoil tried that for a few years when they had the MB certs on AFL. They just dropped the cert without any formality.

I do know Amsoil is running a new motor oil evaluation for public release some time in the future.


It is certainly something I'm interested in them pursuing if that matters. If they've done it in the past, I'm sure they could do it again.

 

[Pablo]

You guys, all of you, should bug Amsoil to get some Euro certs. I'm serious, shoot them an email.


suggestions AT amsoil.com

Just put the @ in there squeeze it back together. (don't want spam, just your emails)

 

[buster]

Quote:
But what if you want to develop a formulated package beyond the minimum API standards and not use the pre-packaged add pack?


How do you know the oil still meets all the required tests now that you modified the pr-approved formula? You have to test it. That's the bottom line and there is no getting around it. Or you just put your faith in it that it does.

 

[buster]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
Amsoil tried that for a few years when they had the MB certs on AFL. They just dropped the cert without any formality.

I do know Amsoil is running a new motor oil evaluation for public release some time in the future.


Hopefully it's nothing like their older comparisons.

 

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: buster


Hopefully it's nothing like their older comparisons.



What was so wrong with their sequence test comparisons?

 

[dave1251]

WOW 9 pages this is something I do not see everyday. Amsoil has always been a polarizing subject on here.

 

[Gene K]

Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary


This is a comment from a major engine Manufacturer

"Beware that some marketers may indicate that their products "meet" API requirements. This is not adequate. Although the licensing process does not gaurantee good oil performance, the marketer must be able to show support data and follow eswtablished testing guidelines to substantiate that the service classification is met. Only oils licensed by API should be used in (our) engines"



If thats from Detroit that may be one of the reasons Amsoil got the DEO certified.

DDC Power Guard 93K218 Approved Oils List
Amsoil, Inc - DEO 5W40

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
You guys, all of you, should bug Amsoil to get some Euro certs. I'm serious, shoot them an email.


suggestions AT amsoil.com

Just put the @ in there squeeze it back together. (don't want spam, just your emails)


Done.

 

[MolaKule]

Quote:
How do you know the oil still meets all the required tests now that you modified the pr-approved formula? You have to test it.


Maybe I should have clarified.

I was referring to developing an oil from scratch that had, thoeretically, a superior add pack to say GF-5, and new base oils.

Of course, one would have to have the formula preferably tested first by most ASTM standards, then fleet tested, then run through the full API testing protocol IF one were seeking API approval.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I see you have faith in the SOPUS line, so do I.

I'd want them in my corner if I had a problem, much more than the company in question.


Well, I have faith in all the majors and a significant number of the boutique brands, all depending upon application of course. As I mentioned, Amsoil is priced not too shabbily at a certain retail outlet here, and for customers interested in two stroke oils, they have every conceivable Amsoil two stroke oil available, in spades. There wasn't a lot of PCMO available, but the 15w-40 was available, even in the big jugs. Nothing was dusty, so it's either moving or someone is cleaning things.

I've used QS since long before the SOPUS days, along with a lot of Formula Shell and Rotella back farming. An uncle had a Shell station and my dad worked there in the off season. Esso XD-3 was another common visitor to the farm. I've also used a lot of GTX and Mobil Super. All I've experimented with out of spec was Royal Purple, and it wasn't really out of spec, since the certifications it had were newer than what the vehicle actually required. The G gets the PYB thanks to a nice rollback. Something from XOM might be next, given the decent price at a local retailer. I don't know yet.

If I were going to extend my OCIs (which goes contrary to warranty in the first place), I wouldn't hesitate to use Amsoil in my G37. That's where Amsoil shines, and if I'm not worried about extending, I shouldn't worry about API/ILSAC much either. As for the old F-150, I'm a little paranoid about using $11+ per litre synthetic oil in a carbed engine, with fuel dilution and all that.

We have to remember that specifications and certifications have more than one purpose. When we talk about SN/GF-5, there are certain criteria that must be met, and proven by test. This is to protect the engine and allow car manufacturers to offer warranty. The other side of SN/GF-5 is the Donut/Starburst, to help consumers purchase something that meets the minimum standards for vehicles with such requirements. Do recall that the vast majority of users here aren't idiots when it comes to oil, and could probably spot an SM/GF-4 or higher by a good PDS and VOA alone, and quite likely correctly guess the grade, and even the brand and line for some posters.

Here's the ultimate question, guys: A lot of us have our favourite oils or preferred oils, but can we honestly say any of them is actually junk? I don't see any serious member claiming City Star as their favourite and posting UOA after UOA, or claiming that Amsoil is only a 3,000 mile oil, or that PYB will wax up an engine.

 

[buster]

To each their own.

 

[buster]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: buster


Hopefully it's nothing like their older comparisons.



What was so wrong with their sequence test comparisons?


That what was ok. Liked the MC oil comparison.

 

[buster]

Along the same lines as Doug's post. It's a valid question.

Quote:
To make and distribute oil at a competitive price, a company must be able to manufacture or buy the components at a competitive price, and have enough of a market to pay for the development and manufacturing cost. That company has to be able to “be a player”. Once that company decides to “be a player”, say, in the Porsche market, then the sound and professional way to operate is to present the finished product to Porsche so they put it through the Porsche 996FL Engine test. This test will last 203 hours. The engine, and the oil, will go through: - 4 times the simulation of 35 hours of summer driving, - 4 times the simulation of 13.5 hours of winter driving, - 40 cold starts, - 5 times the simulation of 1-hour sessions on the “Nürburgring” racetrack, - 3.5 hours of “running-in” program Measurements on the engine and on the oil will be done at regular intervals, and the following parameter will be taken into account to grant the approval or not: - torque curve (internal friction), - oxidation of the oil, - Piston cleanliness and ring sticking, - Valve train wear protection. Cam & tappet wear must be less than 10 µm. - Engine cleanliness and sludge: after 203 hours, no deposits must be visible. - Bearing wear protection: visual rating according to Porsche in-house method. Several mechanics told me that they were relying on “their own testing” to choose an oil. None of these mechanics showed me that their method came close to matching what Porsche does: running dozens of oils through the same 203-hour test, and comparing the results. This test has been designed by Porsche to guarantee the availability of test-proven oils for all Porsche since model year 1973: the letter (attached) given to oil manufacturers specifies that date. This oil testing procedure exists specifically to avoid the wear cam problems created by the fiasco of ILSAC GF-4 being recommended in Porsche by some distributors. Why not use the Porsche testing

 

[Doug Hillary]

Hi,
Gene K - Yes it is Detroit. This statement is not dissimilar to that from a number of other engine Manufacturers

Engine (and other component) testing is not all Lab or Dyno related. Much field testing still takes place "in the real World" of intended application(s)

A lot takes place via the Oil Companies alone and in consort with the component/engine maker, and via third party Consultants in engine design and operation. Sometimes this also involves engine parts suppliers as well

There is no doubt in my mind that for a specific application with today's engines it is best to use a conforming lubricant.

But then I learnt that about 50 years ago!

 

[ltslimjim]

Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
No, I didn't mean test for the certs, but they have to know what those tests entail. Simply run the same tests and publish the test results to assuage the naysayers. They run comparison tests of all sorts of oil to their own benefit for advertising. This would be just another series of tests.


That is the cost of just the tests. Certification costs are very low.

Tom NJ


Kinda shows reason enough not to get ALL your various product lines for PCMO certified. They got 2 out of 3 done, the most expensive isn't. Now, who here wants to claim their boutique is inferior to their API certified oils? lol? much?

Besides, in Europe don't they hate on API anyway.

I mean, there 'is' the argument of CAFE, etc. Maybe Amsoil just doesn't care? lol?

ah...this:

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
I think just getting a few of the major Euro certs would be more than enough. They are extremely demanding.


and...this:

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: CMMeadAM
Most cars in use in North America don't need "Euro certs".
They are in the minority in North America.


Right. Most NA cars don't need ANY fancy certs, which certainly dampens the purpose of this thread. AMSOIL has TWO lines of oil with API certification, which is all the vast majority of American and Asian cars call for.

HOWEVER, since they are a boutique blender with a premium product line, certifying THAT line of oil for something a little less pedestrian, something with a bit more prestige like those of BMW or Mercedes would certainly aide in their oils being used by "that crowd". And, since their premium line of oils are specifically noted to be extended drain oils, and many of the Euro certs are aimed at extended drains themselves (LL-01 for example) then those things would go hand-in-hand.

Most cars in North America don't need "Euro certs", you are correct. Most cars in North American don't need synthetic oil either. So attempting to belittle my point about Euro certs being relevant really doesn't make sense here. We are talking about a premium priced boutique product aimed at the extended drain and "I want the best" crowd. Obviously the Euro stuff is relevant enough to AMSOIL that they make two specific grades of oil for that audience. If you are making an extended drain product, and the pioneers in extended drains are the Euro manu's, then catering to that audience by certifying against their (far more stringent) specs makes a lot more sense then getting some mediocre domestic or Asian spec that every conventional oil on the shelf meets.


Yeah, I like Pablo's suggestion to message Amsoil; and great idea OVERK1LL. Euro specs instead FTW!

 

[demarpaint]

OVER1KILL's suggestion is great, I'd say don't hold your breath though. Their business model is working, why change it because a few oil enthusiasts on a message board want them to get some certs? Time will tell.

 

[Jim Allen]

Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
No, I didn't mean test for the certs, but they have to know what those tests entail. Simply run the same tests and publish the test results to assuage the naysayers. They run comparison tests of all sorts of oil to their own benefit for advertising. This would be just another series of tests.


That is the cost of just the tests. Certification costs are very low.

Tom NJ


Well then, no wonder they don't. A million is not chump change.

I guess the next question to ask would be, could an oil formulation be looked at by knowledgable people and would the performance of an oil be reasonably predictable against the certification tests? In other words, do the tribology guys at Amsoil have a pretty good idea whether their various formulations could, in all likelihood, pass the tests... or not?

 

[Tom NJ]

Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
Well then, no wonder they don't. A million is not chump change.


Additive and base oil suppliers often kick in a good portion of the certification testing or costs, but who pays and how much isn't really the issue. The issue is should a company reference, and thereby imply compliance with, specifications that the oil has not been fully tested against and passed. To me this is an ethical issue, not a legal one, depending on the choice of words. And I apply this ethical rule to all oil companies, large and small.

Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
I guess the next question to ask would be, could an oil formulation be looked at by knowledgable people and would the performance of an oil be reasonably predictable against the certification tests? In other words, do the tribology guys at Amsoil have a pretty good idea whether their various formulations could, in all likelihood, pass the tests... or not?


I'm pretty sure that is done by some companies, but no it is not scientifically valid. I formulated synthetic oils for many years and I can assure you that it is very complex and surprises are common. In my opinion, testing and passing is necessary if a company wants to state that a product meets a specification. If the formulation hasn't been fully tested or hasn't fully passed, then stating that your oil "meets" a defined and accepted specification could be legally troublesome if in fact it doesn't. Hence, in my opinion, the use of wiggle words.

Tom NJ

 

[Jim Allen]

Thanks Tom. Useful answer, especially the "surprises are common" part, which is especially informative.

Following up, I wonder how common failures are using uncertified oils? I don't mean uncertified like some of the "road oil" you have called out at PQIA, but an oil made from quality ingredients that created a "surprise" due to lacking some ingredient needed for a specific application. I imagine this might be difficult to quantify because of all the "noise" in the failure data and incorrect interpretations of root causes.