I swiped a page from my B-I-L's Amsoil rag (Amsoil Action News) of Feb. 2002, page 8.
I did some calculations on their wear, tbn, and Vis. data for the 5W30 HDD. Now bear in mind this is for a diesel engine fleet of 10 units averaged over 240,000 miles; 5 units had petroleum oil and 5 had Amsoil. Sump capacity approximately 15 quarts. These are Kenworth Class 8 Cummins N-14 ESP3 DI engines.
I took the wear numbers from the 60,000 mile row of data:
Iron (Fe) - 0.001599 ppm/mile or 1.6 ppm/1000 miles or 8.0 ppm for 5k miles;
Lead (Pb) - 0.001153 ppm/mile or 1/153 ppm/1000 miles or 5.8 ppm for 5k miles.
*No copper or aluminum reported in the Action News; maybe original has it!?*
TBN - Decreased from 8.92 to 6.05 over 220,000 miles.
Viscosity - went from 10.87 to 11.56 cSt over 220,000 miles.
FF filter was changed every 20,000 miles and BE-110 By-pass was changed every 40,000 miles.
No mention is made about how much make-up oil was added or which trucks had the worst or best oil consumption or mpg.
The mpg averaged 0.197 better with Amsoil HDD. That's a 3% increase in mpg over dino oil.
Now here's the kicker: They had oil change intervals of 120,000 miles (paragraph 2) but reported the results in the table with mileage from 20,000 miles to 240,000 miles.
Question? How does one show trends from 20,000 miles to 240,000 miles when you have a discontinuity in data at 120,000 miles? IE, they essentially started over at 120,000 miles but are reporting their data as if it the oil went continuously from 20,000 miles to 240,000 miles.
I am not saying the oil is not good, but crappy and contradictory data like this is embarassing.
[ September 12, 2002, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]