ASTM data, ATM,GC,M1,RL
- Thread starter Terry
- Start date
- Status
Sully, pump is your best indication of cold flow.
Higher #'s in start, pump, are relatively worse. Higher #'s in operating vis are measured viscosity in "centapoise" and are better for a given spec.
Operating vis is commonly known as HTHS vis. Minimum by SAE for SAE 30w is 2.9 cP. This is what a hot high pressured oil in a bearing might show under stress.
All these oils blow that spec away.
Pablo, the differences here between these oils are minimal except for the operating vis values. The cold start and pump for Amsoil are also a leg up.
Heres a old (2001) Schaeffers SJ 7000 Blend 10w30 run that Bob Winters bought from IOM and shared with me for your comparison. Count on the newer versions to be even better.
start 3070 cP
pump 29514 cP
Gelation Operating vis 3.33 cP
Oxidation resistance >300 min
volatility 15.52%
shear stability 6.42%
TBN or acid resistance 5.96mg/g
We all know that Schaeffers does really well in actual use and is a strong protecting oil. Note that nearly all major oils companies have copied their blending but have not come up with as good of add packs for excellent performance under stress.
Higher #'s in start, pump, are relatively worse. Higher #'s in operating vis are measured viscosity in "centapoise" and are better for a given spec.
Operating vis is commonly known as HTHS vis. Minimum by SAE for SAE 30w is 2.9 cP. This is what a hot high pressured oil in a bearing might show under stress.
All these oils blow that spec away.
Pablo, the differences here between these oils are minimal except for the operating vis values. The cold start and pump for Amsoil are also a leg up.
Heres a old (2001) Schaeffers SJ 7000 Blend 10w30 run that Bob Winters bought from IOM and shared with me for your comparison. Count on the newer versions to be even better.
start 3070 cP
pump 29514 cP
Gelation Operating vis 3.33 cP
Oxidation resistance >300 min
volatility 15.52%
shear stability 6.42%
TBN or acid resistance 5.96mg/g
We all know that Schaeffers does really well in actual use and is a strong protecting oil. Note that nearly all major oils companies have copied their blending but have not come up with as good of add packs for excellent performance under stress.
Tell the little guys that the race car is sold( to a fine Canadian who used to work for Olds road racing) and too late for a quick neck snapping 3 g lateral turn, besides its a Oldsmobile factory built roadracer and contractually they only drive BMW's. Will be in Quebec in the spring after refurbishing in FL over the winter.
I miss racing......torture working for the hard core racers and watching......
Terry, you found the right moment for your post. Thanks a lot for your Christmas present !
Now I know that tested GC was not Castrol Formula SLX. Very likely it was Formula Longtec, GM or Top Up, but not the original mother Formula. HT/HS = 3.45 and Volatility = 11.28 %. As for its shear stability, it looks like a joke or lab misprint.
Now I know that tested GC was not Castrol Formula SLX. Very likely it was Formula Longtec, GM or Top Up, but not the original mother Formula. HT/HS = 3.45 and Volatility = 11.28 %. As for its shear stability, it looks like a joke or lab misprint.
Pabs, if you have a car that fuel dilutes naturally the Amsoil will stay in grade or thin. You may not see a elevated fuel dilute value but it can be interpreted properly from the total result. Volvos fuel dilute. No need to stew my friend, this is just motor oil.
Primus, Your welcome. The bottle said Castrol SLX 0w-30, SL CF A3 B4. The lab is blinded to the brands. For IOM or Savant to fail in accuracy would surprize even me.
Primus, Your welcome. The bottle said Castrol SLX 0w-30, SL CF A3 B4. The lab is blinded to the brands. For IOM or Savant to fail in accuracy would surprize even me.
Terry,
The lab may be right, but if they test HT/HS = 3.45, it means that it is not the same SLX the PDS of which is still widely available. Typical HT/HS is to be 3,58. Or is this irregularity explained by different method used in the US and Europe: D4683 and CEC L-36-A-97 ? Another point is quite high NOACK volatility for a pure synthetic oil and at the same time unbelievable shear stability even for a pure synthetic. How about difference between D5800 and CEC L-40-A-93, as well as D5275 and CEC L-14-A-93 ?
One or two times I already expressed my doubts that actual SLX may be not the same SLX we knew. The history says that many oil formulations were changed when manufacturers switched from SJ to SL.
The lab may be right, but if they test HT/HS = 3.45, it means that it is not the same SLX the PDS of which is still widely available. Typical HT/HS is to be 3,58. Or is this irregularity explained by different method used in the US and Europe: D4683 and CEC L-36-A-97 ? Another point is quite high NOACK volatility for a pure synthetic oil and at the same time unbelievable shear stability even for a pure synthetic. How about difference between D5800 and CEC L-40-A-93, as well as D5275 and CEC L-14-A-93 ?
One or two times I already expressed my doubts that actual SLX may be not the same SLX we knew. The history says that many oil formulations were changed when manufacturers switched from SJ to SL.
" The lab may be right, but if they test HT/HS = 3.45, it means that it is not the same SLX the PDS of which is still widely available. Typical HT/HS is to be 3,58. Or is this irregularity explained by different method used in the US and Europe: D4683 and CEC L-36-A-97 ?
Could be that the oil manufactorer shares the best of multiple runs or the variation in ASTM vis CEC.
Another point is quite high NOACK volatility for a pure synthetic oil and at the same time unbelievable shear stability even for a pure synthetic. This is not uncommon and how do we know for sure what the base oils are ?
How about difference between D5800 and CEC L-40-A-93, as well as D5275 and CEC L-14-A-93 ? "
Yes they are slightly different.
This oil was sourced in Belgium in 2004.
Could be that the oil manufactorer shares the best of multiple runs or the variation in ASTM vis CEC.
Another point is quite high NOACK volatility for a pure synthetic oil and at the same time unbelievable shear stability even for a pure synthetic. This is not uncommon and how do we know for sure what the base oils are ?
How about difference between D5800 and CEC L-40-A-93, as well as D5275 and CEC L-14-A-93 ? "
Yes they are slightly different.
This oil was sourced in Belgium in 2004.
MolaKule
Staff member
Notice the volatility test spec for ATM by Savant and you will notice it is D5800.
From the Amsoil website:
Noack Volatility, % weight loss (g/100g) (DIN 51581) 6.6
Tests were done using different specs, hence different volatilities reported.
For example, Schaeffer's list the volatility specs for their #703 (10w30) as:
Volativity 700 F % Evaporation loss (ASTM D-2887) - 5.4%
NOACK Volativity % Evaporation loss (ASTM D-5800) - 12%.
From the Amsoil website:
Noack Volatility, % weight loss (g/100g) (DIN 51581) 6.6
Tests were done using different specs, hence different volatilities reported.
For example, Schaeffer's list the volatility specs for their #703 (10w30) as:
Volativity 700 F % Evaporation loss (ASTM D-2887) - 5.4%
NOACK Volativity % Evaporation loss (ASTM D-5800) - 12%.
MolaKule
Staff member
@%^&%$#*& I get this stupid flood protection message when I have sent a list of info.
Anyway, here is what I said.
The Savant data is based on D5800.
Amsoil's volatility data is based on DIN 51581:
NOAK Volatility, % weight loss (g/100g) (DIN 51581) 6.6%
Schaeffer's data for their #703 (10W30) is:
Volatility at 700 F % Evaporation Loss (ASTM D-2887) 5.4%
NOAK Volativity % Evaporation Loss (ASTM D-5800)
12%
That's why there are discrepencies in reported volativity, three different volativity specs are being used. The D5800 and D-2887 are more severe than DIN 51581.
Anyway, here is what I said.
The Savant data is based on D5800.
Amsoil's volatility data is based on DIN 51581:
NOAK Volatility, % weight loss (g/100g) (DIN 51581) 6.6%
Schaeffer's data for their #703 (10W30) is:
Volatility at 700 F % Evaporation Loss (ASTM D-2887) 5.4%
NOAK Volativity % Evaporation Loss (ASTM D-5800)
12%
That's why there are discrepencies in reported volativity, three different volativity specs are being used. The D5800 and D-2887 are more severe than DIN 51581.
Molekule, as always, thanks. This p@sses me off bc all along I thought Amsoil's Noak was so impressive. So by looking at this Mobil 1 has a better Noak volatility and Schaeffer's is as good as Amsoil.
http://www.amsoil.com/performancetests/g1971/index.html
According to Amsoil's ASTM 5800 test, M1 is 8.92%? Makes no sense if the test is less stringent. Why would Amsoil's numbers be lower?
[ December 20, 2004, 11:44 PM: Message edited by: buster ]
http://www.amsoil.com/performancetests/g1971/index.html
According to Amsoil's ASTM 5800 test, M1 is 8.92%? Makes no sense if the test is less stringent. Why would Amsoil's numbers be lower?
[ December 20, 2004, 11:44 PM: Message edited by: buster ]
Now that I stewed in my juices for awhile - I can comment (again) on the shear # and ATM.
First of all I haven't seen much on ATM lately this could be some really fresh juice. Second of all, I guess the number isn't that bad.
The main thing that got me thinking is this:
The main gripe about some of Amsoil's motor oils has been the thickening.....but frankly the oils that I run, don't thicken....if anything they shear a bit...and to me this DOES fit this test data.
First of all I haven't seen much on ATM lately this could be some really fresh juice. Second of all, I guess the number isn't that bad.
The main thing that got me thinking is this:
The main gripe about some of Amsoil's motor oils has been the thickening.....but frankly the oils that I run, don't thicken....if anything they shear a bit...and to me this DOES fit this test data.
Buster in Amsoil's test all the oils were tested the same, where they not?
I don't thihk you can compare the results, relatively speaking. Per that test, maybe they were lower.
I don't thihk you can compare the results, relatively speaking. Per that test, maybe they were lower.
I thought Exxon/Mobil was the only supplier of group IV lubricant in North America, Chevron may be the supplier
of the XL-7500 line of oil (group III).
Nope there's several .
You might be refering to EM making the highest VI PAO available in the past but I think now Chevron Phillips makes a 200cSt PAO also if not mistaken .
CP has some Esters too
I'll tell you what, I'm less likely to trust any Amsoil tests or puts up on their webpage. UOA's ultimately tell the story, in which Amsoil does well with wear #'s, but it's TBN is as high as Mobil 1, NOT higher and it thickens more so then Mobil 1. Little shaddy their AJ. Are you hacking this site?
Note, this isn't just for Amsoil. All testing data seems a bit inconclusive at times. The API Amsoil test doesn't seem right to me though. I understand it's marketing and they all stretch the truth to some degree and will market their product in such a way that makes them look better then they are.
- Status