Amsoil vs. Mobil 1

[Spector]

" IMO, Amsoil is the best oil on the market, bar none. But Mobil 1 is a very good oil as well. And as far as the warranty issue, GM would have to prove it was the Amsoil oil that caused the problem."

Yea, true in theory and on paper but the reality is you will fight the battle, in the long run win but in the 1-3 years you take to get settlement you are out your car. Not worth the hassle if warranty is an issue. Don't be fooled by the Amsoil warranty, it has never once paid off as it is ALWAYS an NON mechanically sound engine when it fails and it is never the oil fault.

I use stuff but I have never owned a car that was capable of going over 12,000 miles between changes and have a decent oil analysis. This is at least 7 vehicles to date

 

[turbochem]

Tommorrow I'm pouring Amsoil into my 1984 Volvo 240 Turbo. I expect to get ~9,000 miles off of this oil. Will be posting oil analyses periodically (maybe around 4,000 mi...just to see how my turbo is doing with it)...stay tuned.......

I will be taking a big trip soon, so it'll mostly be highway miles. However, it will be @ high altitudes & mountainous terrain (Denver, Utah, Arizona) working the turbo. We'll see....

To the OP.....listen to the folks on this board, they are pretty knowledgeble...also, do oil analysis if in doubt. Convince yourself (that's what I'm doing)...I'm a skeptic....

 

[sprintman]

mdv
Trisyn or Supersyn?

 

[Patman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Giles:
I like the higher flashpoint of the Amsoil and the Lower viscosity. Unfortunately these results would need to be ran again using SuperSyn instead of Tri-Syn to make any conclusions for which is better today.

---

Anytime we have seen someone run TriSynthetic, follwed by SuperSyn, we've seen the wear numbers go down. SuperSyn is better. So, if TriSynthetic was equal to Amsoil in wear numbers here, it's safe to say SuperSyn has a very good chance of beating Amsoil in wear numbers. I would not be concerned with that slight change in viscosity upwards. Especially since SuperSyn has shown itself to be more stable anyways, so it likely would have not thickened or thinned out.

TBN would've been nice to see though.

 

[Patman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by sprintman:
mdv
Trisyn or Supersyn?

---

It's definitely TriSynthetic, the magnesium numbers give it away. Virgin SS analysis shows almost no magesium in the formula (only about 20ppm)

 

[Mike_dup1]

quote:

---

I've got the utmost respect for anyone who advocates a particular oil based on his own good experience(s) with it. However, Amsoil putting "API Service SL-CF" on the bottle is not the same thing as having the API doughnut or starburst on there. Only those indicate that the oil is API certified. The XL-7500 line are the only Amsoil oils that are API certified "for gasoline engines." I think one of their HD diesel oils may carry the API doughnut, but I'm not sure.[/QB]

---

I don't understand why 'API Certified" is so important to anyone. I think this API certification is outdated, its just a markerting ploy of the big oil companies. So in your opinion everyone should play the game their way or get out?

I would rather pay for the Amsoil anyday then get anything else for free and have done so in the past. One of my prior vehicles came with 12 free oil changes and I would not even use them. You think the dealer, the manf. or the quick lube places want my car/truck to last a long time? Heck no, then want me to keep coming in every 3,000 miles so they can look the vehicle over and possibly find other components that they can service. Their business thrives when it does not.

To those who keep harping on this API certification, I always wonder if they are working for API or in the auton business and Amsoil is hurting their bottom line.

[ December 20, 2002, 08:35 AM: Message edited by: Mike ]

 

[Spector]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike:

To those who keep harping on this API certification, I always wonder if they are working for API or in the auton business and Amsoil is hurting their bottom line.

---

You are missing the point. Many and probably most owners feel that after paying out $20-50,000 for a vehicle that they need to have the warranty in force for as long as possible. The risk of not having it honored is too great for these peiople which I understand and they will go to a dealer for service and use products as recommended in the manual. I understand their thinking. Yes, the warranty issue and Amsoil is debatable but I have yet to learn of an engine failure where Amsoil was used and the manufacturer said (assuming they knew of it) "no problem", we will cover it anyway. Most people want that security of dealer receipts. People on this board are different and I am not sure we need to preach to the choir about qaulity oils. There are many that are great. I disagree with the false and misleading advertising of the Amsoils of the world that say MEET API SL Specs etc. and imply they are API certified. Most people unfortunately do not know the difference either.
So, this topic, I believe, has been dealt with many times on this baor. Personally, I don't even try to convert dino users anymore. As to price, well, more cars on the road with 200,000 miles using dino then with synthetics I will bet! So, tough sell!

[ December 20, 2002, 09:34 AM: Message edited by: Spector ]

 

[jjbula]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike:

I would rather pay for the Amsoil anyday then get anything else for free and have done so in the past. One of my prior vehicles came with 12 free oil changes and I would not even use them. You think the dealer, the manf. or the quick lube places want my car/truck to last a long time? Heck no, then want me to keep coming in every 3,000 miles so they can look the vehicle over and possibly find other components that they can service. Their business thrives when it does not.

---

I knew there were others who thought like me.

 

[TexasTDI]

quote:

---

Originally posted by XHVI:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TexasTDI:
Amsoil uses Exxon/Mobil synthetic basestocks and combines that with an additive package from Lubrizol. The only reason Amsoil doesn't have the API's "seal of approval" is because they limit the amount of ZDDP additives.

---

If this is indeed the case, why doesn't Amsoil spring for SL certification? It's only the "Starburst" and GF-3 that requires a certain phosphorous level. The Rotella T Syn I'm using is loaded with phosphorous, but it still carries the API "doughnut" and is SL certified.

---

As I just stated, the API limits amounts of certain additives to meet their qualifications. Amsoil meets all API qualifications except for Amsoil having more additives allowed by the API. So, the best Amsoil oil can't get the API doughnut per API's rediculous restrictions.

Only the lesser performing XL-7500 oils, with less additives so they can only go 7500 miles between changes, get the doughnut.

See the connection? The BETTER Amsoil oils WITHOUT the API doughnut can go LONGER between oil change intervals than the Amsoil oils WITH the API doughnut. The API wants you to change your oil as much as possible. It's in THEIR best interest. But it's in YOUR best interest to use the BEST oil. And clearly, in this case, it's the oil WITHOUT the API doughnut.

BTW, didn't realize Amsoil switched to Group 3 for their XL-7500 oils. I must not have gotten the memo.

 

[G-MAN]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TexasTDI:

As I just stated, the API limits amounts of certain additives to meet their qualifications. Amsoil meets all API qualifications except for Amsoil having more additives allowed by the API. So, the best Amsoil oil can't get the API doughnut per API's rediculous restrictions.

---

Yes, and as I clearly stated, it's only the Starburst certification that has a phosphorous limit. The doughnut with SL-only certification has no such restriction. Therefore, why doesn't Amsoil pony up for the API SL certification? The "because of the additives" explanation won't get it since there are no additive restrictions for SL certification.

 

[mdv]

quote:

---

Originally posted by sprintman:
mdv
Trisyn or Supersyn?

---

It was Trisyn.

Patman: Do you really think Supersyn could have lowered the numbers? With the exception of iron, I think they all looked very good. The iron isn't surprising given the type of driving on the oils, though.

 

[mdv]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TexasTDI:

BTW, didn't realize Amsoil switched to Group 3 for their XL-7500 oils. I must not have gotten the memo.

[/QB]

---

They switched in July.

My thoughts on the API thing: I could care less what the bottle is stamped. I only care how the oil performs in the engine. So far, analysis hasn't given me anything to complain about with Amsoil.

 

[Patman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdv:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sprintman:
mdv
Trisyn or Supersyn?

---

It was Trisyn.

Patman: Do you really think Supersyn could have lowered the numbers? With the exception of iron, I think they all looked very good. The iron isn't surprising given the type of driving on the oils, though.

---

Yes, I do believe SuperSyn would lower the numbers. On 90% of the results shown so far where someone compares TriSyn to SuperSyn in the same vehicle, it shows the SuperSyn to have much favorable wear numbers. Their advertising campaign is not lying, they do show better wear numbers, which I'm sure is mostly due to the addition of moly now.

 

[Giles]

quote:

---

Originally posted by darrenc:
See my 24 K mile run with Amsoil 10W-30 in my Jeep -- on the used oil analyses board. This stuff performed great. Also, see my 5 K run with the 10W-30 in my wife's turbo volvo. Also impressive. My only bias is that this stuff seems to perform as indicated in my vehicles.

I did, however, just buy a case of Schaeffer's 7000 10W-30 just for comparison. We'll see. I wonder how this will hold up in the Volvo's high pressure turbo???

---

You did get excellent results and it will be interesting to compare to the Schaeffers when you test that! If it were me I would have probably stuck with what was working. Although using an oil with Moly in it has appeal.

 

[68redlines73]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike:

quote:

---

I've got the utmost respect for anyone who advocates a particular oil based on his own good experience(s) with it. However, Amsoil putting "API Service SL-CF" on the bottle is not the same thing as having the API doughnut or starburst on there. Only those indicate that the oil is API certified. The XL-7500 line are the only Amsoil oils that are API certified "for gasoline engines." I think one of their HD diesel oils may carry the API doughnut, but I'm not sure.

---

I don't understand why 'API Certified" is so important to anyone. I think this API certification is outdated, its just a markerting ploy of the big oil companies. So in your opinion everyone should play the game their way or get out?

I would rather pay for the Amsoil anyday then get anything else for free and have done so in the past. One of my prior vehicles came with 12 free oil changes and I would not even use them. You think the dealer, the manf. or the quick lube places want my car/truck to last a long time? Heck no, then want me to keep coming in every 3,000 miles so they can look the vehicle over and possibly find other components that they can service. Their business thrives when it does not.

To those who keep harping on this API certification, I always wonder if they are working for API or in the auton business and Amsoil is hurting their bottom line.[/QB]

---

Here's who has input into the API/ILSAC marks (SL and GF-3):

AAM (Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers)
Association of nine OEMs (North America, Europe, and Japan)
As AAMA, developed in Conjunction with JAMA (Japanese Automobile Manufacturers Association) the ILSAC GF-1/GF-2/GF-3 Passenger Car Motor Oil Specification

API (American Petroleum Institute)
Represents oil marketers
Develops user language for engine oil categories
Administers Engine Oil Licensing and Certification System (EOLCS)

SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers)
Assists in assessing technical needs of automotive industry
Publishes information reports, recommended practices and standards

ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials)
Responsible for testing techniques and test surveillance

American Chemistry Council, Formerly Chemical
Manufacturers Association (CMA)
Represents petroleum additive industry
As CMA, developed CMA code of practice describing engine testing protocol to help ensure that a particular engine lubricant meets its intended performance

So, it's hardly out-of-date nor hardly an oil company conspiracy.

 

[satterfi]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 68redlines73:
Here's who has input into the API/ILSAC marks (SL and GF-3):

AAM (Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers)
Association of nine OEMs (North America, Europe, and Japan)
As AAMA, developed in Conjunction with JAMA (Japanese Automobile Manufacturers Association) the ILSAC GF-1/GF-2/GF-3 Passenger Car Motor Oil Specification

API (American Petroleum Institute)
Represents oil marketers
Develops user language for engine oil categories
Administers Engine Oil Licensing and Certification System (EOLCS)

SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers)
Assists in assessing technical needs of automotive industry
Publishes information reports, recommended practices and standards

ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials)
Responsible for testing techniques and test surveillance

American Chemistry Council, Formerly Chemical
Manufacturers Association (CMA)
Represents petroleum additive industry
As CMA, developed CMA code of practice describing engine testing protocol to help ensure that a particular engine lubricant meets its intended performance

So, it's hardly out-of-date nor hardly an oil company conspiracy.

---

Why do any of these groups care about how long my car engine lasts? Would that be in their best interest?

edit: what about the EPA's input?

[ December 20, 2002, 03:12 PM: Message edited by: satterfi ]

 

[tenderloin]

And AMSOIL is in the business of SELLING OIl and related products. What if any is their motive?? LOL

That game can be played many ways...........

 

[68redlines73]

I guess it all depends on who you want to believe and who you trust...to each his own.

 

[pedaltothemetal]

Unless you do oil analysis, just choose one and do timely oil and filter changes. Your engine will have a very long life.

 

[TexasTDI]

quote:

---

Originally posted by XHVI:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TexasTDI:

As I just stated, the API limits amounts of certain additives to meet their qualifications. Amsoil meets all API qualifications except for Amsoil having more additives allowed by the API. So, the best Amsoil oil can't get the API doughnut per API's rediculous restrictions.

---

Yes, and as I clearly stated, it's only the Starburst certification that has a phosphorous limit. The doughnut with SL-only certification has no such restriction. Therefore, why doesn't Amsoil pony up for the API SL certification? The "because of the additives" explanation won't get it since there are no additive restrictions for SL certification.

---

Sorry, I misread your original post. Some Amsoil oils do meet SL specs.

ASL 5w-30

ATM 10w-30

XL-7500 5w-20

XL-7500 5w-30

XL-7500 10w-30

[ December 20, 2002, 10:23 PM: Message edited by: BOBISTHEOILGUY ]