Amsoil EFO 0w40 Euro Oil

[SubieRubyRoo]

AFAIK, Mobil doesn't publish the HTHS of the FS 0W-40 at present. It's probably 3.6-3.7.

I'm running @High Performance Lubricants Super Car 0W-40 in my SRT, which has an HTHS of 3.875cP.

I just put SuperCar 0w40 in my EcoBeast. The good news is no change in mileage vs No VII 5w30, which is expected since there’s only 0.2 HTHS difference.

It does seem to have smoothed out the idle a little, which may be imaginary, but it’s not confirmation bias because I wasn’t expecting it to do anything.

Now that it’s out of all warranties, time to get serious (HPFP, CRP manifolds, some turbos from Harry Hruska) and the SuperCar has everything needed to keep it happy at 700+rwhp!

 

[kschachn]

Someone needed to make a point for that? I thought that was obvious. Otherwise, grade is about the speed of flow, it is not really that much related to protection (i.e. film thickness) of the fluid

You made the point as well so I’m not sure your point.

Also the SAE grade designations include HT/HS so it’s not entirely about flow.

 

[OVERKILL]

Yeah based on some of conjecture, I figured I’d add my Amsoil results ;-). The wear was lower with SS, moly, B, Magnesium were higher despite Phosphorous being lower.

You can't really determine that from an inexpensive UOA, we are talking parts per million and this is being inferred from contaminants suspended in the oil, within a narrow range of sizes.

Looking at your iron PPM/1000km:
1. 1.085
2. 1.798
3. 1.655
4. 1.181
5. 1.262

Your lowest iron ppm readings were on runs 1 and 4, but all of them are so close that it amounts to nothing but statistical noise.

Moly is a bit higher in the SS, but lower than what we see with other oils. Looks like the Euro is a moly-free formula, so they may be using another FM. Calcium is lower and magnesium higher because the SS is based on an SN+ or newer additive package designed around LSPI mitigation compliance while the Euro product you were using is based on SN or older chemistry, which is high calcium and little to no magnesium. This isn't a huge issue because ZDDP is an LSPI quencher, but I'd expect AMSOIL to update the Euro to newer chemistry at some point, like we see with Mobil 1 Full Synthetic 0W-40/5W-40.

 

[buster]

Looking at the used oil analysis they pretty much performed the same which isn't much of a surprise. Comparing wear metals with different oils is not advisable. Overkill stated the add pack differences.

SS is using a larger ester-cobase (one of the reasons it probably does so well on the IIIH). SS has less ZDP and a Ca/Mg add pack based on SN+. Comparing these two oils is impossible unless you were to run each through comparable engine testing. There could be some engines that require that level of ZDP (euro) so it's a bit tricky when moving to AMSOIL Signature Series in some Euro applications.

 

[edyvw]

Wear levels normalized. I actually expected wear levels to be higher as the additive packages clash with each other (if they do).

So, we shall see where the wear continues to land in future intervals.

What is wear difference?

 

[edyvw]

You can't really determine that from an inexpensive UOA, we are talking parts per million and this is being inferred from contaminants suspended in the oil, within a narrow range of sizes.

Looking at your iron PPM/1000km:
1. 1.085
2. 1.798
3. 1.655
4. 1.181
5. 1.262

Your lowest iron ppm readings were on runs 1 and 4, but all of them are so close that it amounts to nothing but statistical noise.

Moly is a bit higher in the SS, but lower than what we see with other oils. Looks like the Euro is a moly-free formula, so they may be using another FM. Calcium is lower and magnesium higher because the SS is based on an SN+ or newer additive package designed around LSPI mitigation compliance while the Euro product you were using is based on SN or older chemistry, which is high calcium and little to no magnesium. This isn't a huge issue because ZDDP is an LSPI quencher, but I'd expect AMSOIL to update the Euro to newer chemistry at some point, like we see with Mobil 1 Full Synthetic 0W-40/5W-

^This.

 

[doverlabs]

#1 in my case was untuned. Everything else is typical usage.

 

[doverlabs]

^This.

I added up my wear metals. The second last run was 2.35ppm/1k miles. The last run (SS), was 2.37ppm/1k miles. Hardly a “this” moment imo.

My reasoning was this: I shall assume suboptimal liberation efficiency because it’s the first interval of oil with this chemistry so I expect wear metals to increase. However, the wear metals didn’t increase so I decided to project, albeit too soon to be “true”, that since wear metals didn’t increase, the oil did better. Inspite of the theoretical “clash”, the wear metals didn’t increase, so this interval should in theory have the worst mileage.

Of course, I can or someone else can move the goal posts indefinitely.

 

[altaylar]

I added up my wear metals. The second last run was 2.35ppm/1k miles. The last run (SS), was 2.37ppm/1k miles. Hardly a “this” moment imo.

My reasoning was this: I shall assume suboptimal liberation efficiency because it’s the first interval of oil with this chemistry so I expect wear metals to increase. However, the wear metals didn’t increase so I decided to project, albeit too soon to be “true”, that since wear metals didn’t increase, the oil did better. Inspite of the theoretical “clash”, the wear metals didn’t increase, so this interval should in theory have the worst mileage.

Of course, I can or someone else can move the goal posts indefinitely.

those number don't mean what you think they mean. They really deserves no mental bandwidth

 

[kschachn]

I added up my wear metals. The second last run was 2.35ppm/1k miles. The last run (SS), was 2.37ppm/1k miles. Hardly a “this” moment imo.

My reasoning was this: I shall assume suboptimal liberation efficiency because it’s the first interval of oil with this chemistry so I expect wear metals to increase. However, the wear metals didn’t increase so I decided to project, albeit too soon to be “true”, that since wear metals didn’t increase, the oil did better. Inspite of the theoretical “clash”, the wear metals didn’t increase, so this interval should in theory have the worst mileage.

Of course, I can or someone else can move the goal posts indefinitely.

You should stick to IT. Your continued posting here and in the other thread about Porsche A40 approval is so meaningless on so many levels but apparently you have no clue that it is.

 

[doverlabs]

So doing what speed diagnostix does is wrong?

 

[kschachn]

So doing what speed diagnostix does is wrong?

If they are adding up "wear metals" in a cheap spectrographic analysis to rank relative oil quality, then yes they are. There are many uncontrolled variables in such a test which make such an ad-hoc conclusion meaningless.

Comparative wear analysis between oils is difficult and expensive for a reason. It takes a lot to isolate and subsequently tease out the minor variable of the oil. Sequence IIIG doesn't come cheap but it generates statistically relevant results.

Blackstone themselves have noted that no oil they have tested gives a statistically significant difference. That's because it's nowhere near enough of a controlled test to isolate the effect of the oil. It doesn't give a ballpark figure, nor does it "give an indication" to someone for the right oil. It doesn't do any of that.

Sure if you put water in the engine instead of oil then a cheap UOA will tell you that was a bad idea. But between two fully formulated oils? No way. Way too many other variables.

 

[doverlabs]

If they are adding up "wear metals" in a cheap spectrographic analysis to rank relative oil quality, then yes they are. There are many uncontrolled variables in such a test which make such an ad-hoc conclusion meaningless.

Comparative wear analysis between oils is difficult and expensive for a reason. It takes a lot to isolate and subsequently tease out the minor variable of the oil. Sequence IIIG doesn't come cheap but it generates statistically relevant results.

Thank you for explaining. Plenty of reading for me to do.

 

[altaylar]

So doing what speed diagnostix does is wrong?

they are simply trying to sell their product in a way that is hard to call honest.

but then, in today's world of marketing and advertising, ethics is often the first casualty.

 

[Pablo]

Totaling up detected metals for comparative purposes is theater at best. Very misleading at worst- and as much as I like Speed he does use it to rank oils. Or at least he will make statements like “this one did better “ without confirming or really knowing a true cause for one or two elements being maybe even not being statistically elevated. In other words 2-3-4 or whatever number of elements might have even been within one standard deviation of the mean, yet the total is a couple ppm higher than a previous run. No true conclusions can be determined in this case.

 

[tired]

Totaling up detected metals for comparative purposes is theater at best. Very misleading at worst- and as much as I like Speed he does use it to rank oils. Or at least he will make statements like “this one did better “

For whatever it's worth, he has said that they have shown with cam wear measurements, that their analysis of wear metals correlates with measured cam wear.

I'm not disagreeing with your conclusion, but just adding to the conversation. I still think it's a leap. Especially with his apparently somewhat dodgy lab he uses. So many errors...

 

[Pablo]

For whatever it's worth, he has said that they have shown with cam wear measurements, that their analysis of wear metals correlates with measured cam wear.

I'm not disagreeing with your conclusion, but just adding to the conversation. I still think it's a leap. Especially with his apparently somewhat dodgy lab he uses. So many errors...

I don’t doubt the first part. I’m pretty certain dissolved and very small particle cam wear is picked up in used oil analysis. But even then I think he should use statistical analysis in comparisons. At the very least it makes a person slow down with the inappropriate conclusions and decisions.

 

[doverlabs]

Most of all, it falsely spreads the wrong way as if it is the right way. Then, I get the wonderful opportunity to look like a tool.

Thankfully, I’m here to learn.

 

[altaylar]

Most of all, it falsely spreads the wrong way as if it is the right way. Then, I get the wonderful opportunity to look like a tool.

Thankfully, I’m here to learn.

We all here to learn, and share what we learned.
...
okay, maybe most of us. I should not ignore the existence of "I know it all and if you disagree, you are id*ot"

For whatever it's worth, he has said that they have shown with cam wear measurements, that their analysis of wear metals correlates with measured cam wear.

I'm not disagreeing with your conclusion, but just adding to the conversation. I still think it's a leap. Especially with his apparently somewhat dodgy lab he uses. So many errors...

correlation is a really abused concept.

 

[4wd]

PVL use is different. UOA from high cost industries can mean the sample is taken from a cooling loop - hot under load - then sent to the OEM or the lubricant company for verification …
OEM/owner are not BS/SD who says, wow man - could’ve run ‘er longer. They want to verify the oil was still doing its job …
PM schedule remains the same …