Amsoil - no longer commenting on Base Oils

[dkryan]

"Maybe a little more homework is in order before you come charging out "LOL-ing" those who've been following this for a long time. "

Maybe way too long, ekpolk. Longevity and the number of posts on this board do not directly correlate to comments being based on fact, nor do they confer "I'm right and you're not" status.

I clearly detect a change in attitude on the part of some long-time posters who previously posted useful oil and oil related information and experiences.

It now has taken the tone of, "someone's #@$%! in my coffee so now I'm gonna sink this ship!" (It was the admiral, ekpolk).

Buster & Co. have all made it perfectly clear that XOM is acting like a mega-giant corporation and conspiring to keep key information from consumers. What a surprise!

Why not quit using their products (if you even did so in the first place) and instead, let us know what you are now using (I thought GC was that pot 'ol gold at the end of the rainbow for your G35, ekpolk), how long you've used it for, in what engine/make/model/mileage, and what your results are?

Tell us about all of the great alternatives to M-1 and M-1EP. Maybe that will get us back to focusing on what's best for us as drivers and car aficionados and less on the "let's bash Wal-Mart/Exxon Mobil/who will it be next month" parade.

 

[Ugly3]

What about the latest "data" from George saying his lab is 98% sure Mobil 1 is PAO?

 

[mitchcoyote]

Buster, you remind me of an ole' church lady starting a rumor out of jealousy.

 

[jbas]

"Maybe that will get us back to focusing on what's best for us as drivers and car aficionados and less on the "let's bash Wal-Mart/Exxon Mobil/who will it be next month" parade."

It's only because of this website that I now know there could be an issue with Mobil 1. It is only because of this thread that I now know there could be an emerging issue with Amsoil. Personally, right now I'd guess the Mobil 1's are still mostly PAO, and that Amsoil will not "dilute" their good stuff, but looking past the marketing fluff is, in part, what this website is about.

At some point, there will be enough actual data to tell us about Mobil 1, Amsoil, et al, and we can make economic choices based on that data. E.g., I've not bought Castrol's US syn over Mobil 1 because of what I've learned on here. (I look for the GC!). Other's have bought Castrol Syntec, but purchases have been based on knowledge.

 

[ewetho]

As of this post Amsoil still has on their website that the EXACT makeup is proprietary, they have publicly stated that their motor oil is PAO based (other than XL which is GrpIII).

So until that goes bye bye or a competent lab analysis is done we take them at their word. Or sue for false advertising.

They were simply stating the other part of their statement that they will not be tied down to one formula as new base stocks become available they want the freedom to alter their formula. As of now it seems to still be PAO based but the other stuff may be changing, possibly even drastically.

 

[TeeDub]

I think the key is the performance of the fully formulated engine oils, regardless of the basestock blend and add pack they use.

The one comment I'd have about the Mobil 1, EP is that I thought their original API/SL chemistry had a significantly more robust add pack then the latest API/SM version with reduced additive levels. Whatever basestock was being use in that SL rated version of the Extended Performance worked just fine. In fact I thought the performance was about the same as the regular Amsoil 5w30/ASL and 10w-30/ATM formulations and oil analysis seemed to validate that.

Now that the Extended Performance stuff is SM rated, I see little or no difference between this and the regular, less expensive Mobil 1 synthetic. I now think their 0w-40 European Formula is their longest lasting, API/SM rated, gas engine oil.

As for Amsoil, they have continued to raise prices in very small increments, rather than go to less expensive, less capable chemistries. I think this is the right approach for their customer base.

TD

 

[Triple_Se7en]

Quote:

---

I think the key is the performance of the fully formulated engine oils, regardless of the basestock blend and add pack they use.

---

Many here feel the key is the combination of quality, price & performance of all engine oils, so the basestock blend and add pack they use is important in determining it's price structure.

Price structure & XOM sideways speech - in relation to ingredients is what's turned-away/tuned-off so many BITOG folks away from Mobil-1. No one here is asking to know the specific percentages of PAO, but XOM's failure to disclose that they still use a "PAO majority" in the most popular vehicle oil weights has driven alot of users away.

So with the ever-rising costs of PAO, is Amsoil next on the "I Quit" list??

Just my opinion......

 

[ekpolk]

Quote:

---

What about the latest "data" from George saying his lab is 98% sure Mobil 1 is PAO?

---

It's there too, just like the apparent contrary result. Hey, if it turns out that we've been wrong about M1, I will be happy about that. If that turns out to be the case, I will remain baffled by Mobil's willingness to set itself up like this by refusing to discuss oil makeup, even in the most general terms, especially when they used to do this without hesitation.

=========================================================

Quote:

---

. . .Tell us about all of the great alternatives to M-1 and M-1EP. Maybe that will get us back to focusing on what's best for us as drivers and car aficionados and less on the "let's bash Wal-Mart/Exxon Mobil/who will it be next month" parade.

---

DK, you're missing my point, which was in essence that he had missed the point. First, his newness here obviously does not bear upon his knowledge or qualifications. Coupled, however, with his comments, it's pretty obvious that he's not seeing what we’ve been talking about. Again, no one is asking for the precise formula for their oils, as he suggested. We'd just like to see the basic info they used to give us without any resistance.

Alternatives to M1EP? That's a distractor too -- but personally, I'd use one of the Amsoil choices if I were specifically looking for a long-drain product (and even GC seems to do well too). Of course, one could say that there are no other “almost $7 per quart G-III oils” so no alternative. . .

If you don't have a problem with what's in the bottle (or being misled about what's in the bottle), then by all means, pay for and use the stuff. Yes, I'm using other stuff at the moment (though I did run one fill of M1EP in the Prius), so this is pretty much just entertainment for me. . .

 

[JHZR2]

I canot see how this is such an issue. Schaeffer represents explicitly that their synthetic oils are PAO/GRP III... If they are 'open enough', then hey, be an agile consumer and buy their stuff. Otherwise, why not Motul? Pentosin? heck, there are plenty of blenders that still offer information - and you pay a premium for it in many cases.

Unfortunately, at the end of the day we as oil buffs, even given our ability to spread information across the internet will never be able to bring down the lines of Mobil or even Amsoil to the point that they feel obligated to disclose. So, in the end all, we are stuck - and it is a terrible place to be. As of now, we really have NO actual information to prove anything. In an analytical laboratory, one test is no test. Playing secretive is SOP, so that is inconsequential as well.

Buy from whomever discloses information in a manner that you like. If Motul does, buy you pay a premium for it, guess what - you cant always get what you want. Schaeffer does but you have to buy $300 lots to get good pricing? Guess what? you dont always get what you want.

The key is to not induce polarity, which just ruins any effort - and to rather be agile customers, discussing the best options given that some situation at hand MAY be true. People frakly are too stupid to be able to handle anything else well, even if given to them in small doses.

JMH

 

[JHZR2]

And another thing... as for GC analyses, mine was down for some time, and I would be glad to run samples, as I had mentioned before. I would run samples, post my method, and post the chromatograms for the world to see... Its just a bunch of peaks to look at.

For the uninitiated, they see a bunch of peaks - nothing to draw conclusions upon. Ill do the analytical legwork, but not ive any insight to what anything means, beyond some molecular weight ranges.

My question to the ekpolk and similar types is -what exposure legally am I setting my self up for if I am not really a petro-analytical lab, doing this truly for fun and learning, and just posting some chromatograms online for others skilled in the art to look at and potentially read.

I am happy to run different fluids because as an engineer, such analyses appeal to me. I am not looking to reverse engineer or otherwise harm any company's product beyond knowing what exactly is in it for the purpose of optimizing oil chemistries for my best value and optimal protection for my engine.

So, where in all of this could I be in trouble for posting chromatograms, or BITOG be ordered to cease and desist allowing postings of same due to IP loss, etc.???

Many thanks, reply here or by PM if you would.

JMH

 

[Syntec-Man]

I trust amsoil i don't like how they keep there products out of store shelves but i trust they will always have one of the best oils

 

[JAG]

JHZR2,
Would you be willing and able to do anniline point tests on motor oils? It's the possible esters and alkylated napthalenes in oils that interests me, not so much Group 3 vs 4 content. I may try to do it if you won't or can't. Thanks.

 

[ekpolk]

JMH:

Good comments, and thanks for being willing to jump into the fray. As to the legal advice, that's a dicey proposition, and not just for CYA (or CMA...) reasons. I'm a FL lawyer, who happens to be in FL today. You're in NJ, and obviously, the corporate entities whose products we're talking about are located in various places. The laws, of course, vary from place to place. Now this said, my personal opinion is that so long as we don't get into precise formula disclosures, we probably won't hear a thing. If we did, it would likely come in the form of a request to cease and desist. If this were to happen, of course, we can make a common sense decision about that to do. Additionally, there may be some reluctance for oil companies to come out of the shadows. I have little doubt that the various oil companies perform vigorous in depth "reverse engineering" of their competitor's products. Getting "legally aggressive" about our little projects could create a risk of bringing out other things that management would prefer to keep buried. Again, we're not in their labs and we're not ever going to get to the "first mix X amount of ingredient A into so much of ingredient B, etc, etc.". So far, it seems, our basic "science experiments" have not attracted any unwanted attention.

 

[toocrazy2yoo]

Ditto, EkP. The exact formulas aren't being disclosed. Who's to p1ss and moan about inquiring or stating that M1/Amsoil/name-the-brand is PAO v. GroupIII? It's like asking if my valve cover is aluminum or nylon. And what's the difference to a bunch of peeps that change their oil every 5K?

If I've learned nothing else here, I've learned that the synthetics of PAO/Ester/GroupV aren't "slippery" beyond current SM/GF4 dino. What those syns ARE, is longer-lived and more stable under a severe condition. But for 95% of us in our DOHC recent model, fuel-injected family car econoboxes, especially those who change at a 5K interval, synthetics are pointless. POINTLESS. We're not stressing the oil, OR wearing out the additive packie. The beauty of the synthetics for ME is, I can run a GroupIII syn like PP, QS Torque-Power or some such at a 10 or 12K OCI with the same wear as a 5-7.5K OCI with Dino and half the effort and screwing around with the car. The Dino is good stuff, worthy of a 7500 OCI in the brand names, let alone 5K. And the folks that change present-day Dino at 3K have no complaints coming about M1/Amsoil being GroupIII or PAO anyway.

Believe you me, when the warranty is up? It's by-pass filter time, Amsoil PAO, and 20 or 25K OCI, only adding a little make-up oil. I don't kid myself that the wear factors are any better with the syn, only that the syn holds up longer than the with Dino. Therein lies the beauty of syn for me. Any other intention for syn (again, in standard-issue family cars and non-turbo econoboxes) beyond extended OCI is ridiculous.

As for Buster's speculating (and far be it from me to contradict the Buster), if Pablo says the tops in Amsoil's lineup is PAO, that's good enough for me, and oughtta be good enough for the rest. I've seen Pablo get a lotta cheap-shots thrown his way and no one's caught him on the wrong side of the tracks yet. When Amsoil goes GroupIII for the top of the line, you're gonna hear it here first, and from Pablo or **** in Falls Church. Bank it.

Merely my

 

[otis24]

I don't know too much but IMHO, if it has group II and III, call it what it is, Sythetic Blend. If it uses group IV/V base stocks. call them a synthetic. regardless of performance. Then, leave it up to the manufacturer to tout the tests and benefits of their product. But do not try to scam the consumer by calling a product something that it is not. That is really what is at issue here. Folks don't like being lied to.

 

[buster]

So who is more to blame here, Castrol or Mobil? LOL

 

[oilyriser]

Quote:

---

I know of someone testing the prototype Amsoil 0W-20. It is not group 3 and so far his results at 17K miles are terrific.

---

I'll try some in my Subaru!

 

[Syntec-Man]

MOBIL is to blame

 

[LargeCarManX2]

Quote:

---

Al is not gone yet guys

He has stated that group III oil prices have been cheaper to buy, so he lowered the price of them. He has stated that group IV&V have risen so he increased the price of them.

Don't worry .....Al and his company are top notch in my book

---

Amsoil is top-notch in my book and many others. Buster likes Drama

 

[buster]

Quote:

---

Yes, a major hurdle to cross, is beating the PAO reference oil used in the GF-4 fuel economy test. Conventional oils use the temporary shear of viscosity improvers and friction modifier additives to beat the PAO reference oil by 1-2%, PAO formulations need another method.

So, both the major motor oil brands and a huge group of the ILMA independents go the Grp III route, which is where the additive companies have already provided the R&D to pass the GF-4 tests.

Take a look at the list of API SM/GF-4 that carry the term "synthetic" in the label. Every SM* (asterisk) oil on this list is also GF-4 and API Starburst.

http://eolcs.api.org/default.asp Please insert the term "synthetic" into the brand search box.

Of all the synthetic motor oils on this list, I do not recognize any as PAO formulations. So the current trend is "Synthetic" on the label equals Grp III & a PAO formulation is indeed rare.

---

Does anyone have any references to the above? Blue99 made some good points.