Amsoil TBN versus M1 / RP in ASTM D2896 Testing

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by madeej11
Also I'd like to know which oil company doesn't have to outsource ingredients for their formulations, ridiculous. Amsoil is not the be all and end all but they are a great company. True red, white and blue.


Of course they do...but in certifying their oils, they comply with the established standards of ensuring the end user performance.

By not certifying their oils...expressly, per their own words to avoid having to do those expensive tests, they are bypassing that safeguard.

deferring to some chemical analytical standard as an alternate source of authority, they are saying "look over there, a bunny"...when they are in the business of making engine oils...and apparently incapable of making decent oils within the rules.

 

[BigShug681]

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted by BigShug681

I'm pretty sure this is your only point in this thread, to stir up things and enjoy the outcome.

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by Shannow
Originally Posted by madeej11
Also I'd like to know which oil company doesn't have to outsource ingredients for their formulations, ridiculous. Amsoil is not the be all and end all but they are a great company. True red, white and blue.


Of course they do...but in certifying their oils, they comply with the established standards of ensuring the end user performance.

By not certifying their oils...expressly, per their own words to avoid having to do those expensive tests, they are bypassing that safeguard.

deferring to some chemical analytical standard as an alternate source of authority, they are saying "look over there, a bunny"...when they are in the business of making engine oils...and apparently incapable of making decent oils within the rules.

None of the UOA's or high mileage engines here run on Amsoil and 20wt's to boot support this though. That's what I'm getting at. If they were failing to live up to their claims I would step down and agree with you but there is no evidence of this so in their case the API licensing is moot with regards to Amsoil because their proven performance record proves this.

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by Shannow
Re the claim on GM and S.A....I would sincerely hope that no-one in this thread thinks that amsoil knows more about emissions systems and LSPI than GM.


Really? I didn't see any other company having to invent an oil spec to "Fix" their engineering woes. Don't get me wrong Dexos is a good spec but it shouldn't have been necessary.

Furthermore a lot of the GM's around here that are 7+ years old are running around with exhausts that smell like rotten eggs and have check engine lights on. I spend a ton of time on the road and frequently pull up beside / behind them at lights and on the highway. Too many for it just to be a fluke. There is also a lot of vehicles on the road currently and in past with timing chains that didn't require a special oil to keep them from destroying themselves.

I'm not saying all OE's other than GM are immune to this but it seems to me like a pattern is evident and one that spans decades. Whether it's poor engineering, improper testing, or lack of quality components or a combination all contributing to this outcome.

And before anyone decides to pick a fight. We have GM owners in the family who have been burn't by the company with quality issues and who continue to buy GM and continue to be burn't again and are finally looking at other brands after a decade or more of being unhappy. We have also serviced countless makes/models before my dad ended up sick and retiring from his trade all together so there is a good sample size along with what I see on the road daily.

 

[BigShug681]

Originally Posted by kschachn
Originally Posted by BigShug681

I'm pretty sure this is your only point in this thread, to stir up things and enjoy the outcome.

Right! because me posting a coffee smiley is what stirred this up, did you miss the post above? This post is far past me being able to stir anything up if I wanted to stir it up I would have by now, idk why you keep picking me out of all this nonsense but whatever makes you feel better

 

[buster]

Back to the OP, starting TBN isn't that significant. TBN retention is. I've seen numerous UOA's where Amsoil, which starts out with a 10-12 TBN, was down to a 2-3 after several thousand miles. TBN is not linear and in context with the other attributes an oil must uphold, it's not a good performance indicator. This is just Amsoil marketing and cherry picking make their product look better. Amsoil makes very good oil, but I feel they inflate their quality by using the "more is better" mentality. Sure in some cases it can be, but in others not so much.

 

[buster]

Amsoil also used to use the TFOUT test as a comparison. Some background on this. There was a time when Amsoil had some thickening issues (early 2000's) and yet their TFOUT numbers on paper via their white paper were great. Well if you read deep enough, TFOUT is not good for much.

"A TFOUT uses a metal catalyst for the test and different catalysts can be used. I think these different catalysts will react differently depending on the antioxidants (and combinations of antioxidants) used in the various motor oils. So, some antioxidants (and combinations of) will show better or worse results depending on the catalyst used. If a different catalyst was used it would likely produce a different ranking of the oils."

"ASTM has this to say about the TFOUT test:

"This test method is intended to be used as a bench screening test and quality control tool for lubricating base oil manufacturing, especially for re-refined lubricating base oils. This test method is useful for quality control of oxidation stability of re-refined oils from batch to batch.

This test method is useful for screening formulated oils prior to engine tests. Within similar additive chemistry and base oil types, the ranking of oils in this test appears to be predictive of ranking in engine tests. When oils having completely different additive chemistry or base oil type are compared, oxidation stability results may not reflect the actual engine test result.

Other oxidation stability test methods have demonstrated that soluble metal catalyst supplies are very inconsistent and they have significant effects on the test results. Thus, for test comparisons, the same source and same batch of metal naphthenates shall be used."

A useful test for its intended purpose, but not necessarily for comparing oils of different formulations. Much like the 4-ball wear test, which is for grease not motor oil.

 

[Dallas69]

So is this saying the base oil is re refined which is why they use this test?

 

[kschachn]

No it means it is useful as a sceening tool to qualify oil as long as the ones under test have similar composition. They make the comment that it is especially useful to make quality indications as oil is re-refined.

I used to run qualification tests on materials in a previous job. Some tests like this one are only useful if the materials are similar in composition. That's what they are saying here.

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted by Virtus_Probi
Originally Posted by dailydriver

...
But what of the oils which are still considered to be 'boutique' because of their cost (like Ravenol's top line. 'USVO/Clean Synto' products), but still meet/beat and pass all of the various specs' tests (or at the very least, the D1 G2 test)?

Are they to be dismissed as well, just because they are not on the shelf at one's local Sino Mart?

I don't think of Ravenol as a boutique oil, just a foreign brand that is not readily available in the US and ends up being expensive through what channels do exist.
I would advise anybody looking to buy it on Amazon to get in contact directly with the seller and make 100% sure that you are going to get what it is in the the listing...you get one guess as to why I say this! They did make things right with no hassles in the end, though.


Should we be expecting those coded, iridescent, anti-counterfeit 'ribbons' over the Ravenol caps (a la Motul 300V) in the near future?

(Or is that second line above referencing Blauparts sent you the old sec/formulation DXG instead of the new D1G2 version??)

 

[buster]

Originally Posted by kschachn
No it means it is useful as a sceening tool to qualify oil as long as the ones under test have similar composition. They make the comment that it is especially useful to make quality indications as oil is re-refined.

I used to run qualification tests on materials in a previous job. Some tests like this one are only useful if the materials are similar in composition. That's what they are saying here.



Correct.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by madeej11
Seems like Amsoil is the only company with the marbles to basically come out and proclaim OUR OIL IS BETTER THAN YOURS.


Literally every oil company on the planet except Mobil names their competitors and claims superiority.

Originally Posted by madeej11
They've been doing this for years. Where are the big boys? Oh there they are, cowering in the corner.


What? No, the big boys are busy going after each other, because they are the ones that have the majority of the market share and who each of them are trying to poach market share from.

Originally Posted by madeej11
Also I'd like to know which oil company doesn't have to outsource ingredients for their formulations, ridiculous.


ExxonMobil. They produce pretty much every base oil under the sun and co-own Infineum with Shell.

Originally Posted by madeej11
Amsoil is not the be all and end all but they are a great company. True red, white and blue.


Sure they are a great company and make a solid product. It's the hyperbolic nonsense like you've rolled out here that gets people's backs up.

 

[madeej11]

Mobil tried to play the same game with their AP line which is basically a colossal failure. Amsoil SS just keeps on truckin'. Sounds like you just like the Mobil flavor of Kool aid. Cheers.

 

[Shannow]

OVERKILL's response was directly aimed at your statement...

Clearly, you haven't been paying attention to anything that's been going on the last decade, and thus dismiss it as brand loyalty.

Which is clearly your projection of your own condition...

 

[buster]

Originally Posted by madeej11
Mobil tried to play the same game with their AP line which is basically a colossal failure. Amsoil SS just keeps on truckin'. Sounds like you just like the Mobil flavor of Kool aid. Cheers.


Do you have any actual sales figures to back that up? Do you realize that the Mobil 1 brand represents approximately 50% of the synthetic oil market? This is why Mobil is a target. AP hasn't even been out for 2 years yet.

 

[PimTac]

I was just in Wally's the other day and noticed that they had shifted the oil stock around. More space allotted to oil and in particular, M1 AP was more prominent than it has been. More of it on the shelves as well. Either it's selling or WM doesn't know stock placement formulas.

I'll bet on the first since WM is the expert on the latter.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by madeej11
Mobil tried to play the same game with their AP line which is basically a colossal failure. Amsoil SS just keeps on truckin'. Sounds like you just like the Mobil flavor of Kool aid. Cheers.


Originally Posted by WSJ
November, 2018:
Quarterly profits for the world's largest publicly traded oil and gas company surged 57 percent to $6.24 billion. The earnings came in at $1.46 per share, compared with $1.23 forecast by analysts in a Refinitiv survey. Revenue also beat expectations, coming in at $76.61 billion, versus the Street's estimate for $73.55 billion.

*snip*

Exxon's liquids production from the Permian basin, America's top oil-producing region, increased by 57 percent over the last year. The company said in July it is scaling back natural gas output in the Permian and concentrating on pumping higher-value crude oil.

*snip*

Cash flow from operations, a key measure of financial health for oil companies, came in at $11.1 billion, the best reading for the metric in four years.


Originally Posted by Hoover
RE: AMSOIL Inc.: The privately-held company employs about 300 people nationally, with most of them in the Twin Ports area, and boasts revenues in excess of $115 million, according to Hoover's Business Data.


ExxonMobil is the ultimate American success story: a global giant with their hands in every aspect of the industry, the ability to produce anything and everything in-house due to the extensive nature of their portfolio.

That's not a knock at AMSOIL, they simply aren't in the same league as XOM, to compare the two as if they are in some sort of competition is ridiculous as the numbers above show. AMSOIL has to buy the components to produce their lubricants from companies like XOM, CP...etc. They have to buy the base oils, of which one of the sources they use is ExxonMobil Chemical, then have to buy the additives from Lubrizol, Infineum...etc. Mobil produces their own PAO, their own AN's, their own Esters and their own additives. They don't have to shop around.

That doesn't mean that AMSOIL doesn't blend an awesome product. As I already noted, I believe they do. But trying to compare them to the vertically integrated juggernaut XOM, whose revenues are more in a 24hr period than AMSOIL makes all year, is silly.

 

[JLTD]

Wow this really does drag on. Let's see if I can sum up.

Amsoil uses some wonky tests and lots of advertising to back up their claims of superiority, and the advertising is definitely "in your face". In most cases Amsoil does not pay for the "normal" certifications for motor oils, citing cost and flexibility. (Perhaps Amsoil is intentionally using this strategy so that one big supplier cannot squash a small company....but I digress) Nor do their oils exactly match the metrics required for those certifications.

By not having these certifications, they're not required to meet standards when they change formulations, which IS required with each change of a certified oil. Many members are put off by this, concerned with Amsoil's ingredient integrity. (I would have to say that other oil companies might do the same, using the least expensive rather than best additive)

Amsoil products' performance is not in question, only their manufacturing behind the scenes and therefore integrity; and of course price.



Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by PimTac
"Why doesn't AMSOIL license all of its synthetic motor oils?

Answer: If all AMSOIL motor oils were API licensed, the company could not source new raw materials from multiple suppliers, which would greatly increase the threat of supply disruption and the likelihood of extraordinarily high prices. To solve this problem, the API must establish base stock interchange guidelines for synthetic base stocks just as they have for other base stocks, as well as develop interchange guidelines for other components too. Furthermore, licensing formulas limits the ability to quickly adopt new technologies as they are discovered; each variation from the originally licensed formula requires re-submission for complete engine testing (see the Ask AMSOIL entry above for more information)."


Valvoline has no problem with this and they use components from the big boys.


As does Ravenol

Valvoline, founded 1866.
Ravenol, founded 1946. I couldn't find what year they gained any certifications.
Amsoil started in 1972, big oil has a lead of 60+ years depending on company.

I agree that a new oil formulation should not be required to fix a manufacturer's engine problems. Small turbocharged gas engines have been in use in Europe for many years, without any special formulations. (opinion: It's CAFE. Automatic transmissions in turbo cars running at very low rpm and high power output is causing LSPI...."don't lug the engine"...if you learned to drive a manual transmission, you likely heard this. True 50+ years ago, true today. Detonation has always been there, it's just worse with forced induction)

Mobil makes good oil. Pennzoil makes good oil. Valvoline, Schaeffer, Ravenol, Amsoil, Warren and many others blend good oil. I must say that having a certification is a guarantee of a minimum standard and agree with the position that it helps to keep oils like City Star off the market. What I can't agree with though, is that the lack of a certification guarantees that an oil is substandard. Someone may have a crazy idea to use xxx in motor oil and it works great but the oil can't meet any certifications requirements.


Originally Posted by BigShug681
Did we ever answer why using redline or boasting about redline isn't a big deal compared to using amsoil?

Originally Posted by BigShug681

LOL

and

 

[PimTac]

"I agree that a new oil formulation should not be required to fix a manufacturer's engine problems. Small turbocharged gas engines have been in use in Europe for many years, without any special formulations. (opinion: It's CAFE. Automatic transmissions in turbo cars running at very low rpm and high power output is causing LSPI...."don't lug the engine"...if you learned to drive a manual transmission, you likely heard this. True 50+ years ago, true today. Detonation has always been there, it's just worse with forced induction)"




Lugging the engine is what I consider the top reason for LSPI. It's easy to do with today's modern engines and automatic transmissions that are set up for fuel economy by shifting up into higher gears quickly.