Amsoil's response

[buster]

A technical rep from Amsoil said via email that Molys have nothing to do with TBN and that yes they own there own research labs, but Amsoils is tested at many different independent labs for comparisons. He also said Mobil owns all of there labs as well. He was kind of pissed bc I asked him if they test there oil at the lab that Al Amatuzzio (CEO) owns. They seem like very straight forward people who have answered any question I throw at them. All Mobil ever said to me was that Shampoo could beat Amsoil in the four ball wear test and that it means nothing. He aslo was making a big deal about how Amsoil is not API certified for everything. He mentioned added levesl of phosphorus and Zinc. The bottom line with all these oil comparisons, in my opinion, is that they are all so **** close and Mobil 1 and Amsoil are great oils, period. Amsoil is no fraudulant company and in fact they seem to go out of there way with the data and will answer anything.

[ November 20, 2002, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: buster ]

 

[SteveD2]

I've heard that Clorox will do better on the 4-ball test than any motor oil, as will Coke.

The tests they published probably were accurate. They're also mainly meaningless. They could have run tests and published the results on meaninful things like high temp high shear resistance, but they chose things like 4-ball, TBN, and pour point that do not directly relate to what happens inside your engine or mine.

I don't know if the molybdenum additives effect TBN. Do you know what TBN is?...It's the measure of how the alkaline level of the oil in order to counteract acid created by burning the small amount of sulfur in fuel (and there may be other minor acid formers). Too little TBN can lead to acid attack on the bearings. Too much TBN can lead to alkaline attack on the metal. Both these oils had good TBN levels.

Ken

 

[TooSlick]

Ken,

The HT/HS of the 5w-30 supersyn is 3.1 Cp and the Amsoil 5w-30 is 3.5 Cp. The difference is that M1 is 9.8 Cst @ 100C and ASL is 11.7 Cst @ 100C.

Mobil is formulating for maximum fuel efficiency and Amsoil is formulating to meet the ACEA "A3/B4" minimum spec for HT/HS. Either is a perfectly valid approach ....

HT/HS rate data is too difficult to explain to most folks ....Once you start talking about the rheology of Newtonian vs Non-Newtonian fluids the eyes start to glaze over and they do this:

 

[dragboat]

I believe the HTHS of the Mobil is 3.2 but:

(HT/HS rate data is too difficult to explain to most folks ....Once you start talking about the rheology of Newtonian vs Non-Newtonian fluids the eyes start to glaze over and they do this: )

Go ahead,school me my eyes have not been glazed in along while hoping you can offer more than what all was in the last thread about Multi wt's vs single grades and the starting point of these fluids

[ November 20, 2002, 07:41 PM: Message edited by: dragboat ]

 

[MolaKule]

TBN's and Moly:

"I don't know if the molybdenum additives effect TBN."

Oxidants or oxidation of the oil, creates acids. Since moly or MoTDC acts as a corrosion inhibitor AND anti-oxidant (as well as an AW/FM additive), you would have fewer corrosion products such as acids lowering your Total Base Number; i.e., it keeps the acids from forming too soon, thereby keeping the tbn fairly level throughout the life of the oil.

It has been shown in papers and in testing that MoTDC and "Anty" reduce the peroxides and other oxidation products from forming in oil. Peroxides form by nitration and oxidation of base oil products and additives.

 

[SteveD2]

So...you could start with a lower TBN and end up at about the same place.

Ken

 

[TooSlick]

Dragboat,

I called Darren @ Amsoil Tech Services this morning and spoke to him about that 5w-30 comparison - amoung other things. He confirmed that the Supersyn they tested was from one of the recent batches and did represent the current formulation.

Not that it really matters ... but I think the flashpoint of 435F is correct and here's why:

1) The relationship between flashpoint and Noack Volatility. Generally, the higher the FP, the lower the volatility. Since the Amsoil 5w-30 does significantly better in the Noack test, it should have the higher flash point. If you take a look at how these two tests are conducted, you can see why this is so.

2) Used samples of Mobil 1, 5w-30/10w-30 tested by Blackstone Labs show FP's ranging from 395F-410F. I went back through the oil analysis section and found about 10 of these. I did not include the sample that showed excessive fuel dilution and a very low flashpoint. In my experience it would be unusual to have the flash point degrade by 45F-60F in a low mileage oil sample, unless it had lots of fuel in it.

3) Spec sheet data comparing CCS viscosities for these two formulations @ -30C shows that Amsoil is simply using a thicker basestock. This is also why the viscosity @ 100C is 11.7 Cst for the Amsoil 5w-30, vs 9.9 Cst for the Mobil 1, 5w-30. Generally speaking, a thicker basestock will have a higher flashpoint.

So all three bits of actual data would indicate that the Amsoil formulation should have a higher flashpoint, FWIW.

TS

 

[Patman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TooSlick:


2) Used samples of Mobil 1, 5w-30/10w-30 tested by Blackstone Labs show FP's ranging from 395F-410F. I went back through the oil analysis section and found about 10 of these. I did not include the sample that showed excessive fuel dilution and a very low flashpoint. In my experience it would be unusual to have the flash point degrade by 45F-60F in a low mileage oil sample, unless it had lots of fuel in it.

---

But if you look at the flashpoint numbers on ANY Blackstone oil analysis, on any oil, it's way lower than the advertised specs, which leads me to believe that Blackstone uses a different method to determine flash point.

 

[Dick in Falls Church]

Patman-
A flame is held above an open cup of fluid, which is heated. When the vapors from the cup poof, the temperature is noted and that is the flash point. Used to do this many years back in the WI State Highway lab--probably automated by now.

 

[Pablo]

**** - running flashpoints must turn you into a dealer

I also used to determine the flashpoint of my compounds....wow what a flashback....

But there was the closed cup and open cup method....

[ November 22, 2002, 07:05 AM: Message edited by: Pablo ]

 

[mormit]

**** in FC: Hope the eyebrows have grown back.

Ken: Yes I've heard that Chlorox and Coke will outperform any oil on the 4-ball test. I find that hard to believe since the 4-ball wear test is usually performed at 150degC. The Coke is gonna be carmel and the Chlorox is gonna evaporate at those temps. Is this just a rumor or can anyone direct us to test data showing good Coke/Chlorox results?

I believe that the 4-ball is equivalant to the Timkin test. Both are good indications of a lubricant's ability to prevent wear but are not real world tests.

[ November 21, 2002, 09:41 PM: Message edited by: mormit ]

 

[mormit]

Details on the 4-ball test from Amsoil site: "Four-Ball Wear Test (ASTM D 4172: 40kgf, 150°C, 1800 rpm, 1 hr) Scar diameter, mm"

An hour at 150degC is gonna turn Chlorox or Coke into goo.

 

[BOBISTHEOILGUY]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken:
So...you could start with a lower TBN and end up at about the same place.

Ken

---

That's correct Ken. It also again can mis lead people into thinking that it is a better oil as it has a higher TBN starting point listed on the techdata sheet when in fact the levels of antioxidants are not given therefore you cannot tell how well this oil will do based on td#'s for TBN. Case in point, some show 12tbn and others are 8.3, the drop in tbn for the 12tbn oil will drop faster than the 8.3 as it may have more antioxidants to keep acids from forming to start with whereas the other oil is simply just cleaning up the acids that have already formed therefore depleteing faster.

More on this at http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/basic_lubrication_design.htm

 

[Patman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by **** in Falls Church:
Patman-
A flame is held above an open cup of fluid, which is heated. When the vapors from the cup poof, the temperature is noted and that is the flash point. Used to do this many years back in the WI State Highway lab--probably automated by now.

---

But you'll also notice there are a couple of different methods of measuring flashpoint too. Some oils list both numbers, and one of them is much lower than the other. I believe there is an ASTM92 test and an ASTM93 test. So Blackstone must be using the lower one (which is the ASTM93 test), so it cannot be directly compared. Like I said, look at ANY Blackstone analysis and the flashpoint they list is always much lower than it should be.

[ November 22, 2002, 05:29 AM: Message edited by: Patman ]

 

[Patman]

I just dug up an Amsoil 5w20 analysis done by Blackstone for proof of what I was saying:

quote:

---

Amsoil 5W-20
2,500 miles on oil
8,500 miles on engine
F150 - 5.4L V8
No make-up oil
Purolator PUREONE Filter
Purolator paper air filter with 4,000 miles

Blackstone’s comments:
All wear read well below averages in this sample from your ford, which is a very good indication of normal wearing parts. The universal averages show wear after 4,100 miles on the oil. Insolubles were low at 0.5%, showing good oil filtration. Silicon was high, so you may want to check the air filter. Silicon could be form an additive, or left over from the factory. It should go down next sample. No other problems to report. If the air filter is ok, suggest 4,000 miles for your next oil change. The TBN read 7.9 showing plenty of active additive left in the oil.

Sample #’s/Universal averages
Aluminum 3/4
Chromium 1/2
Iron 16/24
Copper 5/9
Lead 0/4
Tin 0/0
Molybdenum 7/72
Nickel 1/1
Manganese 1/1
Silver 0/0
Titanium 0/0
Potassium 3/1
Boron 15/37
Silicon 24/16
Sodium 2/13
Calcium 1963/1424
Magnesium 272/694
Phosphorous 673/771
Zinc 972/942
Barium 0/0

Sus Viscosity @210F 55.6/53-62
Flashpoint 390/>355
Fuel % Antifreeze% 0/0
Water% 0/ Insolubles 0.5/
This is Amsoil’s old Group IV/V formulation. Also, I took a sample of a previous oil change and the silicon was 22 after only 600 miles. So I’m fairly confident it’s from the seals of this relatively new engine. The air filter is relatively new and all connections are tight.

---

You'll note that the flashpoint of the old formula xl7500 5w20 was 446, yet Blackstone shows it at 390. So obviously they are on a different scale.

 

[Pops]

You have a keen eye for things of this nature Patman. Are you an Analyst ? If not you should be.

 

[Patman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pops:
You have a keen eye for things of this nature Patman. Are you an Analyst ? If not you should be.

---

Nope, not an analyst, I work in the publishing business, doing photo retouching, color correction and scanning for the images that go into magazines. But I sure spend enough of my free time (and my time at work!) trying to find out as much info about oil as I can. I'm like a little sponge.

 

[Pablo]

FLASHPOINT No one really picked it up my post by I said there are the open and closed cup methods (why do the names Penske and Martens bounce aound in my head....?)

FOUR BALL WEAR TEST Coke, Chlorox - yeah I was wondering when someone was going to challenge that - Coke? Come on, WE can do better! I know EVERY test has weaknesses and strenghts and errors -lets be a tad more scientific HERE (of all places!) If Coke or urine or cocoanut juice prevents a scar - data and pictures please!

I have noticed something WE ALL need to be careful with - not sure if I have a solution because it's sorta a Web thing but - Example: the assertation that the 4 ball test was useless was made the other day (without a lot of backing data) - fine. Opinions are great! Then someone else mentions that someone else posted that they are meaningless because "Coke and Pepsi will prevent a wear scar" - Opinions are great. However, the real problem happens (and did happen) when a neophyte comes along reads it as fact and leaves with information he gained at BOBISTHEOILGUY... not only that happened but the same guy extrapolated that ALL standard tests are BS (his problem I guess)....see? Let's raise the bar a tad. Sermon over.

 

[Pops]

I have been on this site reading for longer than you have Pablo and no doubt most of the controvery is started when some type test against another oil by Amsoil is posted .The advertised oil is highlighted and the others have alot of N/A data.
I read where Amsoil also slammed Redline on the web for using a brand X way of comparison and then went on to say how can someone trust Redline now ? I believe it was that Al guy saying this and would find it and post it but I believe it would get deleted.
In a web search I type in oil and Amsoil comes up. Now i only visit this place once a week or so and count too many posts imo on Amsoil. I thought this was a place to talk about all oils ? Evidently it is even being over run now with this oil JMHO

 

[OneQuartLow]

Point taken Pablo. You're right. It's easy to take shortcuts in judgement, especially when drowning in all these little details.

I'll buy "Deep Oil Stuff for Dummies" if one of you will write it.

David