Amsoil TBN versus M1 / RP in ASTM D2896 Testing

[DGXR]

I think Amsoil products are very good. But their line of motor oils is a bit too pricey for average Joe like myself, considering the sea of quality oils on shelves.
Using one of the big name brands' synthetic product for 8,000-mile intervals is long enough for me, considering my recommended interval is 5,000... especially when I can get 5 quarts of a name brand synthetic for about $14 (Mobil 1 annual rebate/2 jugs per). How much is 5 quarts of Amsoil? Oh, that's right.

Most of all, I am sick and tired of the Amsoil marketing, comes from every possible direction, feel like I got a black eye and bloody nose. Enough already.

I get it. Amsoil products are premium. Please, stop shoving them down my throat. If they are so extremely awesome, why don't they sell themselves?

Cut the marketing budget in half and use the savings to bring the price down. Then we will talk.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by StevieC
As for the 4-ball wear test they aren't using this any longer as their standard testing and list all the ASTM testing they do but I guess you want to keep bringing this up along with other members like Shannow.


You keep forgetting the relative recentness of this change...their euro line still has it on the data sheets from this year (as I've demonstrated to you in thread after thread)...oh, and why don't you comment on the linearity of TBN, and the logical flaws in claiming "38" or 50" percent better ?

As to the current use of ASTM tests, that RECENT change, is probably due to critiscisms of myself and others over the years.

For example, in multiple threads, Pablo has defended "meets or exceeds" 93K218

Threads are very reminiscent of yours actually.
Shannow : can you demonstrate HOW it meets or exceeds ? i.e. what sort of testing ?
Pablo : so now you claim that amsoil doesn't test their oil !!!
Shannow : No, I am stating that "meets or exceeds" is weasel words without details of how. For e.g. do you take an API compliant oil, 4 ball it, and because amsoil has a smaller wear scar, it "exceeds" that parameter (*)
Pablo : I'll get in touch with Amsoil and find out exactly what they do
...crickets
Shannow: You promised to reveal the testing
...crickets.

(*) because this is EXACTLY what they are doing here...using a non compliant oil, and claiming "betterness" on the parameter of TBN.

Another example, they claimed that ACD "meets or exceeds" A3/B4...but the advertised HTHS was 3.4...clearly it didn't even MEET the minimum HTHS.

I raised it with Pablo, who advised (in PM) that the difference was trivial...note, as Pabloe has repeatedly stated to me, I violated the sanctity of the PM, and it was his personal view, not amsoils….

Now ACD is 3.6 HTHS.

amsoil are clearly paying attention to commentary on BITOG, and this commentary us clearly leading to changes in how they do business.

BUT there advertorial "science" has always been shonky...now they throw in a few "ASTM" references, and the gullible consider their advertorials to be the new gold standard.

From 2016...when the 4 balls were their primary claim...
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...sts-amsoil-oe-0w-20-thoughts#Post4149866
Originally Posted by Tom NJ
Originally Posted by Shannow


Certain of the tests are engine based tests, of significant complexity and cost.

Saying that it "meets or exceeds" those tests without actually DOING the test, "but we'll warrant you if we got it wrong" is not the same as actually meeting the tests.


+1

Uncertified oils may meet the specifications....or they may not. So long as the consumer understands that they are trusting in and relying solely upon the technical competence and/or ethical standards of the marketer, fine.

The beauty of certifications, and the reason that the industry uses them, is that they independently assure that the all of the specification tests have actually been run on the formulation, in qualified laboratories, and that all standards have been met. No trust factor required.

Certification against API and ILSAC specifications is dirt cheap and, in my opinion, the lack of a such certification marks on products qualified to use them is a red flag.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted by kschachn
Originally Posted by buster
Once again, ask Amsoil to provide the SA level of the SS oils, then look at what GM d1G2 requires. Their email means nothing to me.

You don't even need to ask, Amsoil says why on their SS data sheet:

Quote
Fortified with detergents that exceed the dexos 1 Gen 2 sulfated ash specification.

Which effectively negates their recommendation to use the oil in applications that require the specification. Notice how they use the word "fortified" and "detergents" to appear like that is a good thing, when in fact it only means it does not meet the specification.

Once there was a time and a place for boutique oil producers to make an effective argument that their oils were "too good" to obtain actual approvals and specifications, but such a time and place no longer exists. There are too many very tough and effective specs and approvals now for this to be still relevant. And the old argument that it costs too much money is clearly not true when people on here post the actual certification costs. It has become an anachronism which caters only to those individuals that still believe the marketing over what would be demonstrated performance via actual approvals.

And this isn't just Amsoil. The others that stubbornly cling to the old mystique and wink of the secret club of uncertified oils are also included. Time has moved on and there are numerous competitors now, and most of them have the certifications to prove it - usually for a lot less money.

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted by kschachn
Originally Posted by buster
Once again, ask Amsoil to provide the SA level of the SS oils, then look at what GM d1G2 requires. Their email means nothing to me.

You don't even need to ask, Amsoil says why on their SS data sheet:

Quote
Fortified with detergents that exceed the dexos 1 Gen 2 sulfated ash specification.

Which effectively negates their recommendation to use the oil in applications that require the specification. Notice how they use the word "fortified" and "detergents" to appear like that is a good thing, when in fact it only means it does not meet the specification.

Once there was a time and a place for boutique oil producers to make an effective argument that their oils were "too good" to obtain actual approvals and specifications, but such a time and place no longer exists. There are too many very tough and effective specs and approvals now for this to be still relevant. And the old argument that it costs too much money is clearly not true when people on here post the actual certification costs. It has become an anachronism which caters only to those individuals that still believe the marketing over what would be demonstrated performance via actual approvals.

And this isn't just Amsoil. The others that stubbornly cling to the old mystique and wink of the secret club of uncertified oils are also included. Time has moved on and there are numerous competitors now, and most of them have the certifications to prove it - usually for a lot less money.


At this point, I agree.

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?

 

[JustN89]

Originally Posted by DGXR
Cut the marketing budget in half and use the savings to bring the price down. Then we will talk.

Amsoil's sales structure is such that they don't have to spend a ton on marketing; they can have their dealers do their marketing for them.

 

[Virtus_Probi]

Originally Posted by kschachn
Originally Posted by buster
Once again, ask Amsoil to provide the SA level of the SS oils, then look at what GM d1G2 requires. Their email means nothing to me.

You don't even need to ask, Amsoil says why on their SS data sheet:
Quote
Fortified with detergents that exceed the dexos 1 Gen 2 sulfated ash specification.

Which effectively negates their recommendation to use the oil in applications that require the specification. Notice how they use the word "fortified" and "detergents" to appear like that is a good thing, when in fact it only means it does not meet the specification.
...

Exactly, they are counting on the consumer not realizing that the d1G2 SA spec is a maximum, not a minimum.
I am REALLY surprised that they are telling people that they meet the spec but don't want to pay for the cert when their own website shows that they just plain don't meet the spec.

 

[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.

 

[PimTac]

I don't use Amsoil nor do I reject it. It's a good oil. It's just not in my budget.

What is annoying is if you try a search on the web for something oil related you end up getting Amsoil spam sites as the results. Stuff like that turns me off from their products. They should reconsider their marketing scheme.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by PimTac
I don't use Amsoil nor do I reject it. It's a good oil. It's just not in my budget.


LOL, in spite of StevieC's assertions about my ego and amsoil...if ACD was available here, even WITH it's old 3.4 HTHS, and at comparable price to M1, there's be nothing else n my shed.

Refuting Amsoil's B$ doesn't make their product bad, or me a "hater" (some fanbois, like with RP like the labels).

 

[wemay]

Originally Posted by Shannow
Originally Posted by PimTac
I don't use Amsoil nor do I reject it. It's a good oil. It's just not in my budget.


LOL, in spite of StevieC's assertions about my ego and amsoil...if ACD was available here, even WITH it's old 3.4 HTHS, and at comparable price to M1, there's be nothing else n my shed.

Refuting Amsoil's B$ doesn't make their product bad, or me a "hater" (some fanbois, like with RP like the labels).


I agree. Amsoil is great oil, just not for me. But i also like RP's labels.

 

[buster]

I have no issues with Amsoil's quality. I've used it before and I think among the boutique brands it's excellent. I have never liked their marketing approach.

 

[bbhero]

Originally Posted by buster
I have no issues with Amsoil's quality. I've used it before and I think among the boutique brands it's excellent. I have never liked their marketing approach.



Well said buster.

Now ExxonMobil has their own boutique oil which doesn't sell... But at least it truly meets and exceeds the Spec's claimed. Bonus

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by buster
Once again, ask Amsoil to provide the SA level of the SS oils, then look at what GM d1G2 requires. Their email means nothing to me.

You ask, you want to know, their e-mail suffices for me.

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by Shannow
You keep forgetting the relative recentness of this change...their euro line still has it on the data sheets from this year (as I've demonstrated to you in thread after thread)...oh, and why don't you comment on the linearity of TBN, and the logical flaws in claiming "38" or 50" percent better ?


Yes and what other specs are on there, how you conveniently leave those out and just go with the 4-ball wear test ALL THE %$#!@ time.

As for linear if you read what I posted in response to another user I said I was just posting this here because it was new information. I never said I agreed with their logic but as per usual like I have pointed out many times in the other threads you like to read far too into things to hear yourself speak.


Originally Posted by Shannow
As to the current use of ASTM tests, that RECENT change, is probably due to critiscisms of myself and others over the years.


Speculation... But probably to shut folks like you up who constantly trash the brand without cause. Maybe it gives you a woody, I don't know.

Originally Posted by Shannow
... Amsoil are clearly paying attention to commentary on BITOG, and this commentary us clearly leading to changes in how they do business.

BUT there advertorial "science" has always been shonky...now they throw in a few "ASTM" references, and the gullible consider their advertorials to be the new gold standard.

Originally Posted by Shannow
Saying that it "meets or exceeds" those tests without actually DOING the test, "but we'll warrant you if we got it wrong" is not the same as actually meeting the tests.

Uncertified oils may meet the specifications....or they may not. So long as the consumer understands that they are trusting in and relying solely upon the technical competence and/or ethical standards of the marketer, fine.


The beauty of certifications, and the reason that the industry uses them, is that they independently assure that the all of the specification tests have actually been run on the formulation, in qualified laboratories, and that all standards have been met. No trust factor required. [/quote]

They are doing the tests with independent labs and claim so. Where are the lawsuits calling them on their B.S. or from failed engines? Where are the decreasing sales and bankruptcy? Where are the scores of people online warning others?

Originally Posted by Shannow

Certification against API and ILSAC specifications is dirt cheap and, in my opinion, the lack of a such certification marks on products qualified to use them is a red flag.


Which is why, again for the 50th millionth time. THEY HAVE API CERTIFIED FLUIDS IN CERTAIN LINES SO THEY ARE CAPABLE! That should suffice for turkeys like yourself that get all caught up in nonsense of I better use an API licensed fluid or the big bad warranty monster will get me.

The only reason I responded to your nonsense is so you don't accuse me of hiding from it. But I'm not responding further because it's endless circles of nonsense with you. Enjoy your crazy train of 1.

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by JustN89
Originally Posted by DGXR
Cut the marketing budget in half and use the savings to bring the price down. Then we will talk.

Amsoil's sales structure is such that they don't have to spend a ton on marketing; they can have their dealers do their marketing for them.

40 years of increasing sales. Seems to work.

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by PimTac
I don't use Amsoil nor do I reject it. It's a good oil. It's just not in my budget.

What is annoying is if you try a search on the web for something oil related you end up getting Amsoil spam sites as the results. Stuff like that turns me off from their products. They should reconsider their marketing scheme.

I'll give you that one for sure. It's also terrible some of the sites these jobbers have with misinformation and bad formatting. Really leaves a lot of noise out there on the Internet.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by StevieC
t and just go with the 4-ball wear test ALL THE %$#!@ time.


Now you are just plain making stuff up...I went through their ENTIRE list of claims in other threads...but you won't read not respond to them.

You introduced 4 ball against my name in this thread, not me...

For crying out loud, can't you at least acknowledge that for the vast majority of their advertising history they used 4 ball, defended 4 ball, even stating that while industry didn't recognise it, THEY did...and the shift to other test IS RECENT !!!

 

[StevieC]

You always come out of the gate with the 4-ball, it's only when I call you on it that you go into the other spec's. Don't B.S.

Further, I agreed with you in the past that they used the 4-ball in the past but that they have since (and not just recently), started listing other information as folks were asking for it.

 

[Shannow]

"always"...sigh...

https://www.amsoil.com/newsstand/classic-and-vintage/articles/reduced-zddp-and-wear-protection/

Originally Posted by current amsoil literature
When the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the International Lubricants Standardization and Approval Committee (ILSAC) established phosphorus limits at 0.10 percent weight in 1996, motorists and enthusiasts wondered if it would negatively affect wear protection. The move to reduce phosphorus may not have taken into consideration high-performance and modified engines or engines that had yet to be broken in. The debate intensified in 2004 when the API and ILSAC further limited phosphorus to 0.08 percent, where it remains today.

Despite the reduction, there is no evidence to suggest modern engines using today's lower-ZDDP oils are suffering widespread wear. A properly formulated oil that meets API SN and ILSAC GF-5 is capable of delivering reliable wear protection in stock engines. In fact, testing shows that AMSOIL Signature Series 5W-30 Synthetic Motor Oil (ASL) offers outstanding wear protection in the Four-Ball Wear Test (ASTM D4172 Mod.).


Current Euro data sheet (2016)
https://www.amsoil.com/lit/databulletins/g3395.pdf

Current data sheet for 5W30 diesel oil (2017)
https://www.amsoil.com/lit/databulletins/g1301.pdf

Current data sheet for "premium protection" synthetics (2017)
https://www.amsoil.com/lit/databulletins/g2212.pdf

As I stated...dodgy, misrepresentative marketing is in their DNA.

Don't come out swinging just because you fall for it as science...

 

[JLTD]

I have always thought the 4 ball wear test was bunk.

But it's a great marketing tool.