Yes
Amsoil - Performance Tests
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
- Status
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Thank you for confirming!
How would anyone know the answer to that question?
I actually think this is a good question.
It would be interesting to have baseline oils like Mobil Super, Valvoline semi synthetic, Castrol Ultraclean, Havoline semi synthetic, Pennzoil semi synthetic, Warren Oil synthetic blend, Cam2 Superpromax synthetic blend, Quaker State synthetic blend, Amalie synthetic blend, Kendall synthetic blend all tested.
That’s my point. And my point with most oil advertising.
They say it’s “20 times cleaner” or something made up like that. But… against what?
Not saying amsoil makes a bad product in my statement. I’m just more so hitting on marketing.
Amsoil is effectively comparing it to nothing with these tests. All major oil companies are guilty of the same thing. Shell, P66, Chevron, Mobil, etc.
They do some test. Then compare it to “industry standard” - which is a pass/fail test.
If they wanted to make marketing, they would compare it against named products.
Proof that p66 does the same thing:
Now I won’t get into the purse swinging. But I have this same slide with names named, too. Just this marketing annoys me. Because it’s not actually showing anything besides how amsoil does agains the pass/fail standard.
I’d basically like to see more put up or shut up testing.
Attachments
Last edited:
Those that use only boutique oils will tell you that API oils are bare minimum watered-down garbage. We know that's not true. The off the shelf synthetics, especially the top tier within the line, greatly exceed the IVA, IIIH, V, TEOST, and GM Turbo tests.
I look at it as Amsoil comparing their oil against tough industry standard tests. They doubled the length of the IIIH and showed the results and they showed how far below the 90micron max limit their 0w20 was on the IVA. A lot of oils do well on these tests.
Between marketing, legal, formulation and additive supplier/blender relationship on what they're trying to target etc.... The IVA in particular has been used over and over again to prove wear performance.
Exactly my point. As you and I have discussed, if you’re using a top tier synthetic. The differences between Mobil v Kendall v SOPUS v Valvoline or whatever, full synthetic, are minor enough that especially a “normal” user will never tell the difference. Your engine life will be statistically the same.
I just look at it as “safe” marketing. They can show something, anything, that they can claim some big number. But they’re not actually testing it against their competitors. Especially a test that uses a 1980’s engine for. And the test was developed 20 years ago or more.
But to me, this is like… I guess going to a movie and seeing everything wrong about the movie because you did the xyz thing.
I’m strictly playing devils advocate here. And I am absolutely not saying amsoil makes a bad product.
I’m simply bitching about marketing… because… This is the internet. And it’s what you do, on the internet.
Hhahahahaa that's funny and TRUE
I actually wanted more commercials about beating people with dipsticks. Castrol could have really got some miles out of that one.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
- Messages
- 2,847
I agree, and on the flip side...let’s say you have an engine with a design flaw (maybe oil consumption/fuel dilution/bearing clearance/oil pressure issues), are any oils going to combat that and do better than the other? Maybe, but probably not. Either way, oil is going to do so much. Change it, take care of your car, try not to buy one with known issues.
The Sequence IVA test is not very precise. If I recall correctly, I believe the reproducibility is ± 22 µm, which means that all results below 45 µm are statistically equal. So a result at the top of the specification of 90 µm could actually test at 45 µm in a second test, and a result of 20 µm could retest at 65µm Not a suitable test for making "% Better" claims as many companies have done.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Mobil has done some interesting comparatives in the past, like these slides:
This one clearly has modified lighting, but still shows a relevant sequence (IIIG):
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
My Driver in the EU had over 700k miles on his car with M1 New Life - guessing that came from the UK ?
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Even those are still super generic and a little misleading .
The first slide, comparing a 0w40 to a 'market general full synthetic' and 'market general semi synthetic' - like... Okay? So you're comparing a 0w40 to... What? Another 0w40? Who makes a synthetic blend 0w40?
Side by side of their own oil in slide 2, sure, decent. Shows improvement over the previous formulation series.
The last slide, a 5w50 vs again, market general fully synthetic... Uh, okay? What sort of oil? 0w20? 5w20? 5w30? 10w30?
It's just very biased marketing still and even a little misleading in ways.
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
PdsDetailsPage
VisomTM is a very high quality Group III+ basestock manufactured in our Fawley, U
www.exxonmobil.com
The random labels you never heard of sold in the USA, which PQIA tests
The spinning disc doesn't replicate the piston movement on an engine. It's as good as a Project Farm test.
- Status
