Hey guys, new to the forum here & been lurking for a while...but been around high performance cars all my life. I just recently installed a new higher compression/cams S54 bullet into my '04 M3, and I'm ready to remove the break-in oil and switch over to some good stuff. I've never run Amsoil in any of my cars, but after doing some research & reviewing countless data sheets and reading reviews...think I'm ready to give Amsoil a try. My specific question is that although they market a Euro formula 5W40 weight oil, (on paper at least) their Signature Series 0W40 appears better in almost every critical category-from HTHS to Kinematic VI @ 100*C. The VI is within 1 number as well. Why wouldn't I run the Signature Series 0W40 vs. the Euro formula 4W40? FWIW, I called Amsoil, but the tech that I spoke with didn't offer much insight. TIA guys!
Amsoil Signature Series 0W40 vs. Euro 5W40
- Thread starter stosh1
- Start date
- Status
Off topic but relevant, Redline 5w40 could be considered.
Excellent composition.
Excellent composition.
Originally Posted By: JXW
Off topic but relevant, Redline 5w40 could be considered.
Excellent composition.
Thank you for the reply! I actually strongly considered RL (Group V oil vs Amsoil Group IV oil) as well, but I've seen more less favorable reviews/testing results vs. Amsoil. Amsoil seems to finish ahead of RL in most head to head comparisons, & even though RL has a slightly higher HTHS, it has slightly worse cold flow properties. Start up bearing wear seems to be a primary concern w/these engines, and that's just one of the reasons why the Amsoil 0W40 appears to be the better choice. Again, I'm basically just reciting from manufacturer provided data sheets, but that's what I have to go on.
Off topic but relevant, Redline 5w40 could be considered.
Excellent composition.
Thank you for the reply! I actually strongly considered RL (Group V oil vs Amsoil Group IV oil) as well, but I've seen more less favorable reviews/testing results vs. Amsoil. Amsoil seems to finish ahead of RL in most head to head comparisons, & even though RL has a slightly higher HTHS, it has slightly worse cold flow properties. Start up bearing wear seems to be a primary concern w/these engines, and that's just one of the reasons why the Amsoil 0W40 appears to be the better choice. Again, I'm basically just reciting from manufacturer provided data sheets, but that's what I have to go on.
Dave at Red Line always says to use a viscosity lower because their oils tend to run thicker with higher HTHS. If using Red Line I'd use the 5w30.
Check out their full line of Euro oils. They have a 0w40 Euro oil as well. The Signature Series 0w40 doesn't seem to be primarily formulated as a Euro oil; no ACEA specs listed.
EFO instead of AZF. It's got the BMW LL-01 and Porsche A40 approvals.
I can't really choose between EFO (0w40) and EFM (5w40). Same HTHS, slightly better NOACK for EFM. Same approvals.
EFO instead of AZF. It's got the BMW LL-01 and Porsche A40 approvals.
I can't really choose between EFO (0w40) and EFM (5w40). Same HTHS, slightly better NOACK for EFM. Same approvals.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Check out their full line of Euro oils. They have a 0w40 Euro oil as well. The Signature Series 0w40 doesn't seem to be primarily formulated as a Euro oil; no ACEA specs listed.
EFO instead of AZF. It's got the BMW LL-01 and Porsche A40 approvals.
I can't really choose between EFO (0w40) and EFM (5w40). Same HTHS, slightly better NOACK for EFM. Same approvals.
Huh, ok, wasn't aware that Amsoil even marketed a Euro 0W40 oil...haven't seen it listed anywhere? That sounds like it might be the best compromise-if the specs are similar.
Check out their full line of Euro oils. They have a 0w40 Euro oil as well. The Signature Series 0w40 doesn't seem to be primarily formulated as a Euro oil; no ACEA specs listed.
EFO instead of AZF. It's got the BMW LL-01 and Porsche A40 approvals.
I can't really choose between EFO (0w40) and EFM (5w40). Same HTHS, slightly better NOACK for EFM. Same approvals.
Huh, ok, wasn't aware that Amsoil even marketed a Euro 0W40 oil...haven't seen it listed anywhere? That sounds like it might be the best compromise-if the specs are similar.
Last edited:
Quote:
..... I've seen more less favorable reviews/testing results vs. Amsoil. Amsoil seems to finish ahead of RL in most head to head comparisons, & even though RL has a slightly higher HTHS, it has slightly worse cold flow properties. Start up bearing wear seems to be a primary concern w/these engines, and that's just one of the reasons why the Amsoil 0W40 appears to be the better choice. Again, I'm basically just reciting from manufacturer provided data sheets, but that's what I have to go on.
Are there reviews and actual testing that compares Red Line to Amsoil? And I'm not talking the one armed bandit. Haven't seen it.
Are numbers on a datasheet the "end all" in evaluating the real world performance of an engine oil.
Why wouldn't you consider an ester based oil if start up lubrication is a concern.
You've stated there's testing that proves Amsoil better and your final statement is that datasheets are what you have to go on.
I have no idea how you would prove one of these oils is "better". I guess you'd have to define "better" and then spend a lot of money doing real world testing with lab analysis and teardowns and then declare that under these circumstance one is better than the other.
I guess that this is why this kind of evaluation is not done very often.
Instead you can just pick one or the other. I'd bet that in the lifetime of your vehicle there'd be very little difference between the two.
..... I've seen more less favorable reviews/testing results vs. Amsoil. Amsoil seems to finish ahead of RL in most head to head comparisons, & even though RL has a slightly higher HTHS, it has slightly worse cold flow properties. Start up bearing wear seems to be a primary concern w/these engines, and that's just one of the reasons why the Amsoil 0W40 appears to be the better choice. Again, I'm basically just reciting from manufacturer provided data sheets, but that's what I have to go on.
Are there reviews and actual testing that compares Red Line to Amsoil? And I'm not talking the one armed bandit. Haven't seen it.
Are numbers on a datasheet the "end all" in evaluating the real world performance of an engine oil.
Why wouldn't you consider an ester based oil if start up lubrication is a concern.
You've stated there's testing that proves Amsoil better and your final statement is that datasheets are what you have to go on.
I have no idea how you would prove one of these oils is "better". I guess you'd have to define "better" and then spend a lot of money doing real world testing with lab analysis and teardowns and then declare that under these circumstance one is better than the other.
I guess that this is why this kind of evaluation is not done very often.
Instead you can just pick one or the other. I'd bet that in the lifetime of your vehicle there'd be very little difference between the two.
Originally Posted By: OneEyeJack
Quote:
..... I've seen more less favorable reviews/testing results vs. Amsoil. Amsoil seems to finish ahead of RL in most head to head comparisons, & even though RL has a slightly higher HTHS, it has slightly worse cold flow properties. Start up bearing wear seems to be a primary concern w/these engines, and that's just one of the reasons why the Amsoil 0W40 appears to be the better choice. Again, I'm basically just reciting from manufacturer provided data sheets, but that's what I have to go on.
Are there reviews and actual testing that compares Red Line to Amsoil? And I'm not talking the one armed bandit. Haven't seen it.
Are numbers on a datasheet the "end all" in evaluating the real world performance of an engine oil.
Why wouldn't you consider an ester based oil if start up lubrication is a concern.
You've stated there's testing that proves Amsoil better and your final statement is that datasheets are what you have to go on.
I have no idea how you would prove one of these oils is "better". I guess you'd have to define "better" and then spend a lot of money doing real world testing with lab analysis and teardowns and then declare that under these circumstance one is better than the other.
I guess that this is why this kind of evaluation is not done very often.
Instead you can just pick one or the other. I'd bet that in the lifetime of your vehicle there'd be very little difference between the two.
All very valid questions OneEyeJack, and I suppose why I'm struggling so much...as there is not an overwhelming victor between the two. I've not seen a lot of direct head to head testing, mostly testing vs other oils. Again, I've read a bunch of "real world" testimonials w/less than scientific evidence based on cold hard data. If you have knowledge of more real world data, I'm all ears & eager to see! I do not like basing my decision strictly on manufacturers data sheets. I'm still open to either one & opinion can still be swayed.
The factory recommended fill oil was Castrol TWS 10W60, which is in fact ester based, and by all accounts seems to be a good oil, but they're plenty of oil analysis on some M3 specific forums to suggest that it's not the liquid gold it's claimed to be-lol. The cold flow characteristics were less than stellar also, and the original formula is no longer readily available anymore anyway. Not sure that I like the replacement oil any better either.
If anybody has any direct real world comparisons/experience, please feel free to share. All comments/suggestions are very much appreciated!
Quote:
..... I've seen more less favorable reviews/testing results vs. Amsoil. Amsoil seems to finish ahead of RL in most head to head comparisons, & even though RL has a slightly higher HTHS, it has slightly worse cold flow properties. Start up bearing wear seems to be a primary concern w/these engines, and that's just one of the reasons why the Amsoil 0W40 appears to be the better choice. Again, I'm basically just reciting from manufacturer provided data sheets, but that's what I have to go on.
Are there reviews and actual testing that compares Red Line to Amsoil? And I'm not talking the one armed bandit. Haven't seen it.
Are numbers on a datasheet the "end all" in evaluating the real world performance of an engine oil.
Why wouldn't you consider an ester based oil if start up lubrication is a concern.
You've stated there's testing that proves Amsoil better and your final statement is that datasheets are what you have to go on.
I have no idea how you would prove one of these oils is "better". I guess you'd have to define "better" and then spend a lot of money doing real world testing with lab analysis and teardowns and then declare that under these circumstance one is better than the other.
I guess that this is why this kind of evaluation is not done very often.
Instead you can just pick one or the other. I'd bet that in the lifetime of your vehicle there'd be very little difference between the two.
All very valid questions OneEyeJack, and I suppose why I'm struggling so much...as there is not an overwhelming victor between the two. I've not seen a lot of direct head to head testing, mostly testing vs other oils. Again, I've read a bunch of "real world" testimonials w/less than scientific evidence based on cold hard data. If you have knowledge of more real world data, I'm all ears & eager to see! I do not like basing my decision strictly on manufacturers data sheets. I'm still open to either one & opinion can still be swayed.
The factory recommended fill oil was Castrol TWS 10W60, which is in fact ester based, and by all accounts seems to be a good oil, but they're plenty of oil analysis on some M3 specific forums to suggest that it's not the liquid gold it's claimed to be-lol. The cold flow characteristics were less than stellar also, and the original formula is no longer readily available anymore anyway. Not sure that I like the replacement oil any better either.
If anybody has any direct real world comparisons/experience, please feel free to share. All comments/suggestions are very much appreciated!
Last edited:
Hello, Amsoil usually is pretty tough stuff to beat. Although the one tech you talked to wasn't much help; try calling again a different one might be more helpful. Pablo on the user list would probably know someone on here to contact. https://540ratblog.wordpress.com May provide some info whether one is comparing oils or setting up a motor.
Originally Posted By: Toaster_Jer
Hello, Amsoil usually is pretty tough stuff to beat. Although the one tech you talked to wasn't much help; try calling again a different one might be more helpful. Pablo on the user list would probably know someone on here to contact. https://540ratblog.wordpress.com May provide some info whether one is comparing oils or setting up a motor.
Thanx for the insight!
Hello, Amsoil usually is pretty tough stuff to beat. Although the one tech you talked to wasn't much help; try calling again a different one might be more helpful. Pablo on the user list would probably know someone on here to contact. https://540ratblog.wordpress.com May provide some info whether one is comparing oils or setting up a motor.
Thanx for the insight!
This is the new 0w40 Euro formula, just came out in the past year.
http://www.amsoil.com/shop/by-product/mo.../?code=EFOQT-EA
http://www.amsoil.com/shop/by-product/mo.../?code=EFOQT-EA
Originally Posted By: cronk
This is the new 0w40 Euro formula, just came out in the past year.
http://www.amsoil.com/shop/by-product/mo.../?code=EFOQT-EA
Thanx for the link...was actually researching this today!
This is the new 0w40 Euro formula, just came out in the past year.
http://www.amsoil.com/shop/by-product/mo.../?code=EFOQT-EA
Thanx for the link...was actually researching this today!
Originally Posted By: stosh1
Soooo, I've doing even more reading and I have a question...why do the 40 wt. oils appear so much better on paper (higher VI's, higher HTHS, higher kinematic VI @ 100*C), yet seem top perform worse in most testing vs. 30 wt. oils? Weird!!!
Where, again, do you see that they "perform worse" and by what measure?
Soooo, I've doing even more reading and I have a question...why do the 40 wt. oils appear so much better on paper (higher VI's, higher HTHS, higher kinematic VI @ 100*C), yet seem top perform worse in most testing vs. 30 wt. oils? Weird!!!
Where, again, do you see that they "perform worse" and by what measure?
I'm all for trying the Amsoil (use it in everything I own). But why 40wt in an S54? I thought the spec from bmw m was Castrol 10w60. I've heard of some saying the spec is too heavy and trying a 50 or 40 wt. Have you had success before using 40wt in that engine?
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: stosh1
Soooo, I've doing even more reading and I have a question...why do the 40 wt. oils appear so much better on paper (higher VI's, higher HTHS, higher kinematic VI @ 100*C), yet seem top perform worse in most testing vs. 30 wt. oils? Weird!!!
Where, again, do you see that they "perform worse" and by what measure?
AAACK, first of all, sorry for the bad grammar & typos above. Uuumm, I guess mostly from the std. "pressure" type wear testing that I've seen. One ex. would be from the previous page: https://540ratblog.wordpress.com/ His results seem to mirror most testing that I've either seen on the interwebz or heard about. Do you have any links or evidence to support or reject it?
Originally Posted By: stosh1
Soooo, I've doing even more reading and I have a question...why do the 40 wt. oils appear so much better on paper (higher VI's, higher HTHS, higher kinematic VI @ 100*C), yet seem top perform worse in most testing vs. 30 wt. oils? Weird!!!
Where, again, do you see that they "perform worse" and by what measure?
AAACK, first of all, sorry for the bad grammar & typos above. Uuumm, I guess mostly from the std. "pressure" type wear testing that I've seen. One ex. would be from the previous page: https://540ratblog.wordpress.com/ His results seem to mirror most testing that I've either seen on the interwebz or heard about. Do you have any links or evidence to support or reject it?
Originally Posted By: stosh1
AAACK, first of all, sorry for the bad grammar & typos above. Uuumm, I guess mostly from the std. "pressure" type wear testing that I've seen. One ex. would be from the previous page: https://540ratblog.wordpress.com/ His results seem to mirror most testing that I've either seen on the interwebz or heard about. Do you have any links or evidence to support or reject it?
Oh boy. There are numerous threads on this board about that website, all of which explain in excruciating detail how it is worthless - both in methodology and data collection.
Please don't tell me you joined and posted just to resurrect this "test"?
AAACK, first of all, sorry for the bad grammar & typos above. Uuumm, I guess mostly from the std. "pressure" type wear testing that I've seen. One ex. would be from the previous page: https://540ratblog.wordpress.com/ His results seem to mirror most testing that I've either seen on the interwebz or heard about. Do you have any links or evidence to support or reject it?
Oh boy. There are numerous threads on this board about that website, all of which explain in excruciating detail how it is worthless - both in methodology and data collection.
Please don't tell me you joined and posted just to resurrect this "test"?
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: stosh1
AAACK, first of all, sorry for the bad grammar & typos above. Uuumm, I guess mostly from the std. "pressure" type wear testing that I've seen. One ex. would be from the previous page: https://540ratblog.wordpress.com/ His results seem to mirror most testing that I've either seen on the interwebz or heard about. Do you have any links or evidence to support or reject it?
Oh boy. There are numerous threads on this board about that website, all of which explain in excruciating detail how it is worthless - both in methodology and data collection.
Please don't tell me you joined and posted just to resurrect this "test"?
Not doing this out of the sake of defending anyone, but there was a time when we were all new here and in that vain I could understand how this test could be seen in a positive light without knowing the extensive discussions that took place here.
That said there's no real proof for or against using a particular grade of oil over another. Some may be more right than others in certain applications, though most choices against using the manufacturer suggested grade tend to be engine sound or "thicker protects better." European oils have different required specs and the main reason is for extended oil change intervals. Whether or not Xw40 is a must, it is the easiest to source in the US that meets specifications, but I think most call for 0w-30 or 5w-30. Finding a 5w-30 euro grade requires a bit of digging since your average 5w-30 doesn't meet those specs here with it being a common grade used in other cars with energy conserving being a priority. Due to HTHS specs I don't think there is an "Energy Conserving" labeled European oil out there.
Yes I'm guilty of not using the recommended grade. I'm using 5w-30 in a 5w-20 car and 10w-30 in a 5w-30 car. Jaguar never authorized the use of 5w-20 in the 4.2 V-8 and the previous years of the Lincoln called for 5w-30 in the exactly the same motor. Call it laziness I guess, but I prefer to use the same grade in both cars to make stocking oil easier. I went 10w-30 this time as cold start just isn't a concern here where it never gets below about 25 Fahrenheit.
Originally Posted By: stosh1
AAACK, first of all, sorry for the bad grammar & typos above. Uuumm, I guess mostly from the std. "pressure" type wear testing that I've seen. One ex. would be from the previous page: https://540ratblog.wordpress.com/ His results seem to mirror most testing that I've either seen on the interwebz or heard about. Do you have any links or evidence to support or reject it?
Oh boy. There are numerous threads on this board about that website, all of which explain in excruciating detail how it is worthless - both in methodology and data collection.
Please don't tell me you joined and posted just to resurrect this "test"?
Not doing this out of the sake of defending anyone, but there was a time when we were all new here and in that vain I could understand how this test could be seen in a positive light without knowing the extensive discussions that took place here.
That said there's no real proof for or against using a particular grade of oil over another. Some may be more right than others in certain applications, though most choices against using the manufacturer suggested grade tend to be engine sound or "thicker protects better." European oils have different required specs and the main reason is for extended oil change intervals. Whether or not Xw40 is a must, it is the easiest to source in the US that meets specifications, but I think most call for 0w-30 or 5w-30. Finding a 5w-30 euro grade requires a bit of digging since your average 5w-30 doesn't meet those specs here with it being a common grade used in other cars with energy conserving being a priority. Due to HTHS specs I don't think there is an "Energy Conserving" labeled European oil out there.
Yes I'm guilty of not using the recommended grade. I'm using 5w-30 in a 5w-20 car and 10w-30 in a 5w-30 car. Jaguar never authorized the use of 5w-20 in the 4.2 V-8 and the previous years of the Lincoln called for 5w-30 in the exactly the same motor. Call it laziness I guess, but I prefer to use the same grade in both cars to make stocking oil easier. I went 10w-30 this time as cold start just isn't a concern here where it never gets below about 25 Fahrenheit.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked