Amsoil probably using Group III as well?

[buster]

Quote:

---

With you reminding everyone every other post, how could we forget?

---

Some people need to be reminded bc they constantly use kindergarten analysis to determine the quality of an oil.

Ex "That oil has no moly, it must suck." "It's a Group V,it's superior."

G, that was my understanding as well. Hatco developed it and Amsoil marketed it.

 

[JAG]

Exactly, except my term for it was that many on BITOG possess a "Neanderthal level of understanding".

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

With you reminding everyone every other post, how could we forget?

---

Some people need to be reminded bc they constantly use kindergarten analysis to determine the quality of an oil.

Ex "That oil has no moly, it must suck." "It's a Group V,it's superior."

G, that was my understanding as well. Hatco developed it and Amsoil marketed it.

---

Well you just bought some Amsoil ASL because it's mostly Group III with a great add pack?

And JAG, you mention LubroMoly HC version, but you use the synthetic version?

Before you guys get all hoity-toity, look at your own actions. You guys tell everyone Group III can be just as good, then you buy something else for your own use.

 

[LargeCarManX2]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Just to set the record straight...

Amsoil started out as a 100% diester based synlube in 1972, with the basestock sourced from Hatco chemical.

---

I was under the impression that Hatco developed the entire formulation for Amsoil and wasn't just the supplier of the basestock.

---

I find this story interesting. Diester is the primary base stock in 1972 and was this oil formulated by Hatco, or co/formulated...leaving Amsoil to add the additive package? It would seem at first...at least in my mind....that Hatco would have fully formulated the oil.

Does anyone know why the PAO and Diesters were combined? I remember a friend in the early 80's telling me Amsoil was not a true synthetic like Neo because Amsoil was not using the full diester as a base package anymore....sound familar? Everything comes around...and everything old is new again.

 

[buster]

Quote:

---

Well you just bought some Amsoil ASL because it's mostly Group III with a great add pack?

---

I bought ASL for several reasons. 1)My GF's VW has 10k miles on M1 0w-40 and is due for a change. 2.)ASL/ATM SM additive package looks very good. 3.) Amsoil is a better value than Mobil 1 right now and I'd like to run the same oil in both cars. 5)Amsoil has proven itself by showing great UOA's over the years for ALL their oils.

As much as I hate their nit wit dealers who know nothing about oil, I think "Space age molecules" and other marketing tactics are worse.

Quote:

---

Before you guys get all hoity-toity, look at your own actions. You guys tell everyone Group III can be just as good, then you buy something else for your own use.

---

I didn't buy ASL bc it's PAO. I bought it bc of it's performance. I almost bought the XL for my car. I can tell you that from all the people I've spoken with over the years, from Roy Howell to Maxima, you can make a good oil using any base oil. The guys from either Motul or Maxima (can't remember which) told me that a lot of it depends on the chemists. A lot of "old school" chemists are against using high ester content oils due to hydrolysis. They also realize that additives play such a crucial role and have come along so much that they can get away without having to use hardly any esters these days.

Redline markets it's product based on the fact that it is a predominately Group V based oil. Lakespeed Jr., the sales rep for Joe Gibb's said that RL was the lowest performing oil they tested. Said M1 R was the second best oil they tested. Who would have thought? The guys from Elf (Total) said their F1 oils are 80% PAO based. Shell, from the article in Race Car Engineering magazine, said their F1 oils are Group III/IV and V blends. Shell Helix is Group III and found in Ferrari's. So as you can see, it's not a black and white issue. Not to mention the super Group III+ oils are in par with PAO's.

 

[JAG]

Quote:

---

And JAG, you mention LubroMoly HC version, but you use the synthetic version?

Before you guys get all hoity-toity, look at your own actions. You guys tell everyone Group III can be just as good, then you buy something else for your own use.

---

Yeah, because I use 40 weight oils in the VW. If that HC oil met the same specs it does and was 5W-40, I'd give it a try. I'm feeling all kinds of hoity toity!

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

I didn't buy ASL bc it's PAO. I bought it bc of it's performance.

---

And how did Amsoil decide to get that performance?

Quote:

---

Redline markets it's product based on the fact that it is a predominately Group V based oil. Lakespeed Jr., the sales rep for Joe Gibb's said that RL was the lowest performing oil they tested.

---

Worse in what way? Be specific.

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

And JAG, you mention LubroMoly HC version, but you use the synthetic version?

Before you guys get all hoity-toity, look at your own actions. You guys tell everyone Group III can be just as good, then you buy something else for your own use.

---

Yeah, because I use 40 weight oils in the VW. If that HC oil met the same specs it does and was 5W-40, I'd give it a try.

---

So there's no Group III based oils that meet the specs you require at a reasonable price?

 

[JAG]

Maybe Valvoline 5W-40...not that I know what basestocks it uses. I ditched it previously in a quest for a lower volatility oil to see if I could get less oil buildup in the intercooler. Turned out that it didn't seem very dependent on volatility because Amsoil 5W-40 added a similar amount of oil to the intercooler and my tests showed it indeed had very low volatility (as it's spec sheet listed and which I distrusted).

 

[buster]

Quote:

---

And how did Amsoil decide to get that performance?

---

I don't know, why don't you call them up and ask them? IMO, they got that performance from 30 years experience using top notch additives and base oils.

Quote:

---

Worse in what way? Be specific.

---

Worse in Hp/Tq compared to RP, M1 and JG oil. Again, call them and ask them.
http://www.joegibbsracingoil.com/oiltech.php

5/4/06

Why are you so h$ll bent on this Group III nonsense? People are dieing in Iraq every day and your so hung up on XOM's move to use some Group III? Who cares? Buy Amsoil if you want a PAO oil.

Quote:

---

"You have to find just the right amount of the various additives - friction modifiers, anti-wear agents, detergents and dispersants - all of this stuff the chemical engineers are playing with to get just the right mix for that particular application," explains Joe Gibbs Racing Oil's Lake Speed, Jr. "We have been playing around with our mix for some time and the oil we race with today is not the same thing we ran 6 years ago. We've perfected the recipe since then, and now we run a 5W20. But there are still some NASCAR NEXTEL Cup teams that run 15W50 motor oil because that's what they've always run."

---

Quote:

---

Base oils are an important ingredient in motor oil but what sets one oil apart from another is the additives.

According to Royal Purple's Martin, oil really doesn't become what it is until you add the additives.

"All of the benefits are in the additives," says Martin. "Even in terms of racing oils most oil companies purchase additive packages. There are only a handful of additive suppliers globally. So in many cases the oils are basically the same with the only differences being the marketing. We actually manufacture our own additives. We aren't a refinery so we buy our base oil but that's the flour in the cake. The two major characteristics of our additives is the film strength, which is the load carrying characteristics of the oil not just the wear, and the oxidation resistance."

---

And while your at it, call RP ask them to clarify what I quoted above....

http://www.automotiverebuilder.com/ar/eb60652.htm

Source above

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

Why are you so h$ll bent on this Group III nonsense?

---

I'm not the person who starts thread after thread and post after post mentioning the basestocks of everyone's formulations.

You claim to have chosen a particular formulation because of it's performance, yet when we look further, it's a PAO based formulation.

And how did you start this thread...with some veiled attempt at seeding doubt about Amsoil formulations? I guess Pablo's word isn't good anymore?

http://theoildrop.server101.com/forums/s...e=13#Post752974

The day RL, RP, JG, etc, start using mainly Group I/II/II+ basestocks for their racing oils, that'll be the day you will be able to convince me that basestocks don't matter.

P.S. I have a feeling most military personnel would like to be left out of your hypocritical arguments on oil formulations.

 

[buster]

Quote:

---

And how did you start this thread...with some veiled attempt at seeding doubt about Amsoil formulations?

The day RL, RP, JG, etc, start using mainly Group I/II/II+ basestocks for their racing oils, that'll be the day you will be able to convince me that basestocks don't matter.

P.S. I have a feeling most military personnel would like to be left out of your hypocritical arguments on oil formulations.

---

I started this thread because Pablo had mentioned that TS said Amsoil might have been using some Group III in the mix as well, which turned out to be not true. I could careless if they did or didn't.

If you're aiming for the best, I would think PAO/Ester based oils would be the way to go, however, it's clear some chemists think you can achieve top notch performance with other base oils using different additives.

p.s. - sometimes things need to be put in perspective for those hung up on the insignificant. Myself included.

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

p.s. - sometimes things need to be put in perspective for those hung up on the insignificant. Myself included.

---

Yep...we can only hope you take to heart some of your own advice.